Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Lyme Regis District Water Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Canterbury Extension Bill [Lords],

East Hull Gas Bill [Lords],

Wigan Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ELGIN AND LOSSIEMOUTH AND SOUTH-WOLD) BILL,

"to confirm certain provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Elgin and Lossiemouth and Southwold," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Headlam; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to he printed. [Bill 112.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FACTORY ACCIDENT, WALTERGANJE.

Mr. ALLAN REID: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the accident at the sugar factory at Walterganje, caused by the collapse of a defective staging, whereby a vat of boiling sugar fell on a number of the workpeople; if he can state how many of these people were injured or died; and whether inquiry has been made into the structure, conditions, and equipment of the factory and the precautions taken to ensure safety?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I regret to say that, according to my latest official information, four men were scalded to death on 20th April in an accident at this factory, and 12 more seriously burnt, of whom one has Since died. The senior inspector of factories and the commissioner of the division have visited the factory, but I have not yet heard the result of the investigation which the inspector is required to make under the Indian Factories Act. Steps are being taken to warn other factory owners with this type of machinery and outfit.

Mr. REID: Is it a fact, as I am informed, that the factory at which this accident happened was erected and equipped by a foreign firm?

Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to say that the machinery was not English machinery; it was foreign machinery.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from memory whether there is a Workmen's Compensation Act in India?

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Member cares to put down a question on the point, I will endeavour to answer it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Are the Indian factory laws covering a factory of this kind as rigid as ours, and was the factory properly inspected by the Government of the area concerned?

Sir S. HOARE: I feel sure that the factory was properly inspected. I could not deal with a general question like the first part of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, in answer to a supplementary question.

MR. MUKUNDALAL SIRCAR.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House information as to the case of Mr. Mukundalal Sircar, who was convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, under Section 144 of the Criminal Penal Code, and whose appeal was later allowed by Mr. Justice Burn; and if he will state whether fresh evidence was produced in support of the appeal?

Sir S. HOARE: Mr. Mukundalal Sircar was convicted by the Third Presidency magistrate, Madras, under Section 117
read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. I am sending a copy of the magistrate's judgment to the hon. Member. I have no information about the appeal.

Mr. GREN FELL: Is there any provision for compensation for a man unlawfully imprisoned in this way?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member seems to think that this particular man was unlawfully imprisoned, but that was not the case.

AIR PILOTS (TRAINING).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if a decision has yet been arrived at by the Government of India with regard to the establishment of an aeronautical college at Delhi for training Indian pilots for the services between Karachi and Singapore under the scheme submitted to them by the Indian National Airways, Limited; and, if not, when a decision may be announced?

Sir S. HOARE: According to my information, no scheme for the establishment of an aeronautical college at Delhi has been submitted to the Government of India, or is being considered by them.

OPIUM (PRICES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the price of opium varies from Es.20 per sen in Mewar to Rs.240 per sen in Pudukkotai, he will take all possible steps to enforce a standard price for opium all over the Indian Empire?

Sir S. HOARE: The possibility of taking steps for the equalisation of the selling price of opium in the Indian States, with that prevailing in the surrounding districts of British India, has engaged the attention of the Government of India for some time past. As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, there are divergencies of price in the ProvInces of British India, where its fixation rests with the local Governments.

CONGRESS (ABRESTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make a full statement on the report made to the Government of India by the Government of Bengal on the representations made by members of
the Legislative Assembly alleging ill-treatment by the police; whether the report can now be published; and whether he will instruct the Government of India to hold a public inquiry into the matter with a view to prosecuting those responsible for making the statements, if they prove to be false or unwarranted?

Sir S. HOARE: A statement giving in detail the conclusions of the Government of Bengal which are endorsed by the Government of India, will be issued in India this evening. When I receive it, a copy will be placed in the Library. There is no occasion for any further inquiries.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made last week, with regard to the untruthful allegations that had been made, will he either have a full inquiry made into the whole of the allegations, or prosecute the people who made the untruthful statements?

Sir S. HOARE: We have had a full inquiry made, as the hon. Member will see from the report in the Library of the House. The people who made the charges against the police are entitled, if they so wish, to take their charges to a court of law.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the evidence seems to show that the statements were wholly untrue and misleading, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is the duty of the Government of India to institute proceedings against the people who are alleged to have made the statements?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. The evidence, so far from showing that, shows exactly the opposite, namely, that there was no ground for the charges.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I asked. I asked whether, if the statements were made by Malaviya and others, which the right hon. Gentleman last week characterised as being wholly untrue, he will advise the authorities to institute proceedings against Malaviya or any other person who made those statements?

Sir S. HOARE: It is quite unnecessary to take a step of that kind. I am satisfied, and so are the Government of India, that there is no ground for the charges.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the action of the Bombay Corporation requiring its contractors to use no article manufactured in the British Empire unless it could not be obtained elsewhere, the Government of India will secure that in the case of any Government grants to local authorities in India a condition will be attached that the local authority in question in inviting tenders for any manufactured articles or otherwise shall not insert any clause discriminating against goods manufactured in the British Empire?

Sir S. HOARE: It would, I think, be out of the question to insist upon a condition of this sort in connection with grants to local authorities which cover such services, for example, as education and public health. I cannot conceive any such condition being imposed on local authorities here by the Board of Education or the Ministry of Health. As Lord Lloyd stated in public a few days ago that this resolution was passed recently, I think he must have forgotten that it was passed when he himself was Governor of Bombay. The records in my Department fail to show that Lord Lloyd's Government took any action in the matter. I understand that considerations of price and quality have been ever Since, and still are, decisive with the Bombay Municipality in placing their contracts.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's proposals with regard to the new constitution for India are based on the assumption of co-partnership in a common enterprise; and does he think that the action of the Bombay Corporation is very hopeful in that regard?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not be expected to agree with a resolution of this kind. On the whole, however, I think that it is better to leave things as they are. The Corporation, I understand, have not acted upon this resolution. Short of passing Acts to abrogate the powers of the Corporation, I do not see what can be done.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not alike unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to bring Lord Lloyd's name into the answer to this question, when he will recall that at the time other considerations were involved?

Sir S. HOARE: I should not have made reference to my Noble Friend had he not made this statement in public a short time ago.

Sir W. DAVISON: This matter has gone on for several years. The right hon. Gentleman is now responsible for affairs in India; does he think that it is right that this state of things should continue?

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Alfred Knox.

CIVIL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to make themselves responsible in any future constitution for the pensions of the officials and officers of the Indian Civil Service, Indian Army, Indian Medical Service, Forestry, and other Departments?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) on the 7th March, 1932.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the anxiety there is in the country on this point, is it not possible for the Government of India to pay over sufficient Capttal to provide for these pensions before the institution of new reforms?

Sir S. HOARE: I realise that there is considerable anxiety on this matter. It is one of the questions that have to be considered very fully by the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend will see, if he refers to the answer I mentioned, that I dealt very fully with the question in that answer.

CHINESE TURKESTAN (MOSLEM RISING).

Mr. NUNN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the Moslem rising in Chinese Turkestan; to what cause the rising is attributed; and whether British lives and property have been endangered?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The rising appears to have originated in grievances of the Tungans and the Turki
tribes against the local Government. According to my latest information, the insurgents have been successful, and Kashgar fell to them on the 3rd May. There are unconfirmed reports that 10 Hindus have been killed and their property looted in the course of outbreaks at places in the neighbourhood of Yarkand. With this exception British lives and property do not appear to have suffered.

Mr, NUNN: Has the Foreign Secretary any reason to suppose that there is Russian influence behind this rising?

Earl WINTERTON: Have we still British Consular representation at Kashgar?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir; there is a British Consul-General at Kashgar, and I may perhaps say that he was given an apology by the highest local administrative authority for the failure of the Chinese to protect British subjects' lives and property.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SUBSCRIPTIONS).

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which members of the League of Nations applications for the payment of their arrears of subscriptions by instalments have been sent?

Sir JOHN SIMON: By a, decision of the 11th Assembly of the League of Nations, the unpaid balance of China's contributions for the years 1922 to 1930 is payable by equal annual instalments over a period of 20 years. Similar arrangements were made in the case of four American countries, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Salvador, in respect of contributions due up to 1922.

Mr. HANNON: Are all these nations taking part in the deliberations at Geneva on the momentous questions which are now under consideration?

Sir J. SIMON: The constitution of the League of Nations is, I think, well known to my hon. Friend.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. LEVY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give any further information with regard to the position of hostilities
between China and Japan, and the possibility of an armistice being arranged in the near future?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the fighting has ceased, but I have not yet received details of any arrangement that may have been arrived at.

Mr. McENTEE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the interview attributed to Sir Francis Lindley whilst in Canada, expressing sympathy with the policy of Japan in Manchuria?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed by Sir Francis Lindley that the report of an interview with him which was quoted in the Press in this country as having been published in Canada is not correct. He did not, in fact, say anything in explanation of Japanese policy that had not already been said in the report of the Lytton Commission.

POLISH CORRIDOR.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in recent conversations he has had with the representative of Herr Hitler, the question of the future of the Polish Corridor was discussed?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Mr. DAVIE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that nothing on this subject was discussed with this gentleman, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in these conversations, anything at all was discussed?

Sir J. SIMON: I think I have already stated to the House what matters were discussed.

GERMAN LOAN (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. LOGAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has represented, or will represent, to the German Ambassador in London that those British investors who subscribed to the German 5½ per cent. 1930 loan, issued under a specific contract as to interest payment, are apprehensive of the interest not being paid to them in gold and in accordance with the terms of the
original prospectus at the time of the issue of the loan?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 18th of May by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question put in this connection by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken).

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PIRACY (CAPTURED BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Major HILLS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information concerning the British officers carried off by Chinese pirates?

Sir J. SIMON: Further letters have been received from the captives, the latest of which, dated the 16th May, indicates that they are not being badly treated. Communication is still being maintained with the bandits, and His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Newchwang and the authorities concerned are making every effort to ensure a favourable outcome.

KAILAN MINING ADMINISTRATION.

Earl WINTERTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the effect of the recent military operations in China upon the property of the Kailan Mining Administration; and, in particular, whether there has been any interference with the railway built by this British company for their use between Tongshan and Chinwangtao?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no information of any damage to the property of the Kailan Mining Administration. As regards the second part of the question, my understanding is that the railway was not built by this company; it is a Chinese Government railway, though built with British Capttal. Part of the second track of the railway was raised some weeks ago for strategic reasons by the Chinese military authorities, and the railway bridge over the Lwan river has Since been damaged.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that this railway is essential in order that the mines may be carried on; and
has not the mining company a very large share in the railway?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot answer that question with precision, but I have no doubt that the railway is essential to the mining company.

ARGENTINA (BRITISH OFFICERS' IMPRISONMENT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the recent imprisonment by the Argentine authorities of three officers from the British steamer "Baron Ogilvy"?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Buenos Aires reports that two officers, not three, were arrested on a charge brought by two men, who were stowaways, that they had been ill-treated. The officers were detained in prison while the charge was investigated, and then released on the ground that the charge against them had not been established. The procedure throughout appears to have been in accordance with the local law. I may add that while under detention the officers enjoyed special privileges in the way of food and quarters and were assisted by a firm of British solicitors.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE RELATIONS.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the injury which is being done to British industrial interests by the trade rupture between this country and Russia; and whether any negotiations have been entered into Since the imposition of the Russian embargo, or are contemplated, with a view to the restoration of the former commercial relations?

Sir J. SIMON: The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter has already been stated to the House, and the opportunity for negotiation indicated be the Soviet Government is still open.

Sir M. WOOD: May I have an answer to the first part of my question?

Sir J. SIMON: That, I think, would perhaps be more properly addressed to the Board of Trade.

Sir M. WOOD: Is not the Foreign Office interested in the fact that this policy is causing injury to industrial interests in this country?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has not injury been caused to the sense of British justice and to the British people by what has been done to our people out there?

FOREIGN NATIONALS (PRIVATE PROPERTY).

Sir W. DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of compensation for the confiscation by the Russian Soviet Government of private property in Russia will be brought up at the World Economic Conference?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The question is not one within the scope of the Conference.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is very important that the representatives of the different nations should consider this matter; and, in view of the fact that one important matter in connection with our foreign trade is the resumption of trade with Russia, may I ask how trade can be resumed with Russia as long as this question of the confiscation of the property of foreign nationals is not settled?

Sir J. SIMON: This question has to do with the question of compensation, which means, I suppose, measuring in money what is to be given to someone who has suffered. That does not seem to me to fall within the programme of the World Economic Conference. That Conference will be concerned with general monetary and economic questions, and not with questions of particular persons or particular companies in a particular State.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend realise that my question refers, not to the amount of compensation, but to the recognition by Russia that property belonging to foreign nationals has been confiscated?

Sir J. SIMON: I can assure my hon. Friend that these matters will be borne
in mind, but I thought it only right to indicate that I rather doubted whether the World Economic Conference could deal with them.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In bEarlng these questions in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the old debt of the South American States to this country?

DEBTS TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. DORAN: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the indebtedness of Russia to Britain at the end of the last financial year, including interest?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Deritend Division (Mr. Crooke) on 28th March last.

Mr. THORNE: Will that statement include debts incurred prior to 1917?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It will be the net amount owing by Russia to this country.

Mr. THORNE: Will it include debts incurred during the Tsarist regime, and, if not, why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can indicate what has been the result of the conference called by him of London representatives of countries exporting butter and cheese to the United Kingdom with a view to the institution of a system of voluntary restriction upon the imports of such commodities?

Sir PERCY HURD: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of his conversations with foreign and Dominion countries regarding the restriction of the exports of milk products to this country?

Captain P. MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make any statement as to the result of his conference with foreign representatives in this country with regard to the possibility of reducing the imports of foreign processed milk?

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any statement as to the result of his negotiations with exporting countries with regard to the voluntary reduction of imports of milk products?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I have reason to believe that the foreign countries mainly concerned with the export to this market of cream, condensed whole milk, condensed skimmed milk and milk powder will agree, as an emergency measure designed to assist the milk industry of this country, to limit their exports of these products to the United Kingdom during the three months June, July and August next to an amount not exceeding 80 per cent. of the quantities shipped in the corresponding period last year, with a review each month of the market and supply position. Those foreign countries whose exports to this market are comparatively small have been asked to ensure that their shipments remain at previous low levels. I have every hope that the overseas Dominions, whose representatives I have consulted, will use their best endeavours to cooperate with us so far as they are con-cened with the export of these products. I have been in touch with the leading manufacturers in this country and have been assured that, having regard to these arrangements, there will no longer be any question of reducing their output. The position regarding other dairy products continues to receive close attention.

Mr. ATTLEE: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought of entering into conversations with people who are badly off in this country? Could he not arrange for a greater consumption of these products by the families of, say, the unemployed?

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend think that these measures which he has just taken will be adequate to save the dairy industry from almost immediate collapse; and is he aware that many of these manufacturers are now throwing up their contracts, and that farmers are suffering in consequence?

Major ELLIOT: I would call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend specifically to my statement that I have been
assured by the leading manufacturers that, having regard to these arrangements, there will no longer be any question of their reducing their output?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the policy of reducing these imports by 20 per cent. will only represent approximately 2 or 2½ per cent. of the total milk consumed in this country; and does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that that is going to help agriculture very much?

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that to have secured an assurance from the skim milk manufacturers of this country that there is no longer any question of reducing their output will be regarded as a very sensible contribution to the prosperity of the milk industry and of farmers in this country.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, having considered all the implications of this voluntary restriction, state to the House that it is going to assist agriculture materially?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

Captain TODD: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any further statement to make with regard to price-fixing arrangements under the milk marketing scheme?

Major ELLIOT: I have conferred with representatives of milk producers, manufacturers and distributors, including the consumers' co-operative movement, in regard to price-fixing arrangements under the projected milk marketing scheme, and I am gad to say that both sides have arranged to consider a procedure on the basis of Clause 11 of the Agricultural Marketing Bill as at present before the House. This procedure would ensure that prices and matters affecting prices should be discussed by a Joint Committee with equal voting representation of the Milk Marketing Board on the one hand and of distributors, including manufacturers, on the other, together with three independent members who will take part in the deliberations from the start. An undertaking has been given by the interests concerned that should agreement be reached they will use their powers or influence, as the case may. be, to secure the observance of the decisions
of this Committee in regard to prices during the first year of the operation of the scheme. I have been given to understand that it would be the desire of the parties that I should nominate the independent members. Thus, the structural objectives of the Milk Commission would, in the main, be attained without recourse to special legislation which, as I informed the House, in reply to a question addressed to me on 3rd April, 1933, by the Noble Lord, the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington), the Government could not see its way to introduce. I should like to express the Government's appreciation of the good will which has been shown by all concerned. This agreement if reached should, I consider, greatly facilitate the proceedings at the public inquiry. It would obviously contribute to the smooth and successful working of the scheme if and when it comes into operation.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: If this board is to represent, on the one hand, the interests of producers and, on the other, those of consumers, ought not independent members to be nominated by some Minister who does not represent one of the two parties?

Major ELLIOT: I should hope the House would trust me to exercise my privilege of nomination.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the workers in the industry, who have no representation at all?

Major ELLIOT: They are deeply concerned, and they will be closely concerned in the actual nominations of the industries themselves.

MEAT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Lord BURGHLEY: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to state the amount of chilled beef to be imported during the quarter ending 30th September, 1933?

Major ELLIOT: Arrangements have been made to reduce the amount of chilled beef to be imported in the first half of the quarter ending 30th September next by 10 per cent. below the maximum agreed at Ottawa. The question of the reduction to be arranged for the remainder of that quarter is receiving close attention, and I hope to be in a
position to make a further announcement shortly.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman shortly announce the completion of the negotiations with regard to the wrappers for this meat?

Major ELLIOT: That question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

IRISH POTATOES (IMPORTATION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Irish Free State Department of Agriculture to grant a bounty of £4 per ton on Irish Free State potatoes exported up to 30th June of this year; and whether, in view of the fact that the duty on imported potatoes into this country only amounts to £4 13s. 4d. per ton, he proposes to take any further steps to ensure that the market will not be over supplied to the prejudice of the British farmers?

Major ELLIOT: Subject to the qualification that the bounty is confined to new potatoes, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I do not anticipate, judging from past experience, that, apart perhaps from any temporary effect on some local markets, imports of new potatoes from the Irish Free State in June are likely to be sufficient to prejudice the position of British growers.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not time that something was done to get rid of this vendetta?

Major ELLIOT: I cannot see that there is any vendetta about this.

MARKETING SCHEMES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, have been prepared, and how many are in course of preparation?

Major ELLIOT: Eight schemes have been submitted under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. Of these one, applicable in England, is in full operation; two, applicable to areas in Scotland, have been approved but a poll of registered producers on the question whether the
schemes shall remain in force has not yet been taken; the remaining five schemes are in various preliminary stages and have not yet been the subject of approving Orders. Two schemes are in course of preparation by Reorganisation Commissions and one by producers, but as I informed the hon. Member on the 13th March last there may be others in course of preparation by the producers of which I am not yet aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

FOREIGN MAILS.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the difficulty which confronts the public in ascertaining whether at any given time the quickest method of despatching a letter to countries in Europe and the Near East is by air-mail or surface route, he will consider the institution of a system whereby for an express fee any letter will be sent by the fastest available route to such countries?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Letters prepaid with the appropriate rate of air postage are forwarded by the fastest available route, and the purpose of my hon. Friend's suggestion is thus I think already served.

PENNY POST.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the recent alterations in the financial arrangements as between the Treasury and the Post Office subsequent to the Bridgeman Report and agreed to by the House, he will now consider the advisability of reverting to the penny-letter post?

Sir K. WOOD: The cost of restoring penny postage would be about £6,500,000 a year. The Bridgeman Committee in their report stated that any marked alteration in the postage rates of inland letters would necessitate reconsideration of the arrangement which Parliament is now being asked to sanction.

DOVEDALE (PRESERVATION).

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the present position with regard to the preservation
of Dovedale as a national park; and to what extent the matter is being dealt with by the local authorities interested as part of a joint planning scheme?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Action has not been taken up to the present. The local authorities in Dovedale have not passed planning resolutions. The most promising means of approach is the inclusion of the area in that of a joint committee, and my right hon. Friend hopes that at an opportune time the county council will see its way to take steps to this end.

Mr. MANDER: Does my hon. Friend intend to take any steps to encourage action on these lines?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think it is better for the initiative to be taken by the council.

SANITARY INSPECTORSHIP, LUTTERWORTH.

Mr. PRICE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take with regard to the appointment by the Lutterworth (Rural District Council of an unqualified person to the position of sanitary inspector in contravention of Article 16 of the Sanitary Officers Order, 1926, and the terms of the advertisement; whether he is aware that two fully-qualified sanitary inspectors, out of the 80 or more applicants who applied for the position, were interviewed by the council; and that, in the absence of his approval to the appointment, the local authority have accepted an offer by the person appointed to share part of the loss incurred in foregoing their claim to the repayment of half of the officer's salary out of the Exchequer Contribution Account?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has declined to approve this appointment, but as the local authority are willing to forgo their claim to repayment of half the salary out of the county fund, he has no power to prohibit it. He proposes to arrange in due course for an inquiry into the sanitary administration of this district. My right hon. Friend has received no information from the local authority in regard to the last two parts of the question, but he understands that the facts are as stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CHINA (BRITISH TRADE MASKS).

Mr. NUNN: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what protection is afforded to British merchants who have registered their trade marks with the Chinese Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Registration of a trade mark under the Chinese Trade Marks Law confers upon the registered proprietor the exclusive right to use the trade mark upon the goods for which it is registered. It is understood that such exclusive right can be protected, either by a civil action or by means of proceedings under the Chinese Criminal Code.

Mr. NUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that traders in China are complaining rather bitterly about the ineffective way in which this regulation is applied and, having already registered

The following statement shows the total tonnage of coal imported into Norway and Sweden, respectively, during the periods indicated, distinguishing the percentage proportions purchased from the United Kingdom during the years 1925 and 1929–1931.The figures of total imports in the Norwegian trade accounts include coal produced in Norwegian owned mines in Spitsbergen:


Period.
Norway.
Sweden.


Total Imports.
Proportion from United Kingdom.
Total Imports.
Proportion from United Kingdom.






1,000 tons.
Per cent.
1,000 tons.
Per cent.


1925
…
…
…
2,006
87
3,605
78


1929
…
…
…
2,396
61
4,915
47


1930
…
…
…
2,239
54
4,703
38


1931
…
…
…
1,863
36
4,463
24


1932
…
…
…
1,991
(a)
4,458
(a)


January-April.






1925
…
…
…
477 (b)
Not available.
726
Not available.


1929
…
…
…
541 (b)
1,036


1930
…
…
…
609 (b)
1,394


1931
…
…
…
503 (b)
975


1932
…
…
…
494 (b)
1,057


1933
…
…
…
498 (b)
1,030

(a) Not yet available.

(b) As particulars for January-April, 1933, are not yet available in respect of Norway, particulars for January-March in each year have been given.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether for the convenience of those who wish to study the effects of trade agreements

in Peking and having had to register again in Nanking, they are getting a little tired of frequent registration without any result?

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member will bring any case that he has in mind to my notice, I shall be glad to look into it, but I have had no indication that the registration was not effective.

COAL IMPORTS, NORWAY AND SWEDEN.

Mr. DAGGAR: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total quantity of coal imported by Norway and Sweden; and the percentage of that quantity purchased from the United Kingdom during the years 1925, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, together with similar particulars for the first four months of each of those years and 1933?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

with foreign countries, he will, when in future White Papers giving the details of trade agreements are issued, cause the existing rates of duty to be printed side by side with the proposed new rates in
the schedules to the agreements, both as regards the duties imposed by foreign countries and those imposed by the Government of the United Kingdom?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The text of an agreement published in a White Paper must be an exact copy of the agreement as signed, but as my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) on 2nd May, full details of all changes in rates of duty to be made as a consequence of all such agreements will be- published in the Board of Trade Journal.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. ROBINSON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any move has yet been made by the Argentine Government in the direction of reducing their tariffs against British goods to the 1930 level?

Dr. BURGIN: In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention of 1st May, negotiations will be opened very shortly in Buenos Aires for the conclusion of a supplementary agreement, which is designed to give effect, inter alia, to the undertaking of the Argentine Government to reduce certain duties to the 1930 level, so far as fiscal considerations and the interests of national industries permit.

INCOME TAX (MILITARY PENSIONS).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the estimated loss to the revenue if pensions paid to widows of ex-service men were exempt from Income Tax?

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the approximate cost to the Exchequer would be if the annuities granted to the holders of the Victoria Cross were not subject to Income Tax, as in the case of those in receipt of wound and disability pensions under the Finance Act, 1919?

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the pension granted to non-commissioned officers and men who are holders of the Victoria Cross is subject to taxation as earned income and that the pension is limited to £50 per
annum; and if he will state the approximate amount of the loss to the revenue were the Victoria Cross pension exempted from taxation as in the case of wound and disability pensions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the statistics collected regarding the Income Tax do not distinguish the categories of income mentioned in the questions.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the special circumstances of this class of case, will consideration be given to it before the Finance Bill leaves the House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be only too glad to assist the hon. Gentleman, but the statistics do not distinguish these categories. If there is any particular information outside that area that he desires, I shall be only too glad to give it.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that many of these pensioners are paying Income Tax for the first and second time, will any consideration be given to them before the Finance Bill leaves the House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I am afraid not. These pensions, of course, are paid in full without deduction of tax. If there is any tax payable, it is because the recipient comes within the Income Tax category.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that widows with pensions of round about £130 a year are now called upon to pay upon the proportion in excess of £100, and does he not think that the case might very well be reconsidered?

Mr. CROOKE: As the amount of tax on the annuities of the Victoria Cross must be comparatively small, will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of easing the lot of these gallant ex-service men by having the annuities made tax free?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is only when the recipients of these gratuities or pensions come above the Income Tax limit—in other words, when they have means above that limit—that they are liable to tax. Any poor person below that limit is not subject to tax.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average taxpayer would welcome legislation to abolish what is nothing more than an act of petty meanness?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldunrin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 24.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[3.23 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. sir Francis Dyke
Goldie, Noel B.
Nunn, William


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Patrick, Colin M.


Albery, Irving James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Guest, capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alien, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hales, Harold K.
Potter, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
PowNail, Sir Assheton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Harris, Sir Percy
Pybus, Percy John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hartland, George A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Blindell, James
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ray, Sir William


Bossom, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rea, Walter Russell


Boulton, W. W.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Capt, Sir George E. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boyce, H. Lesile
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Remer, John R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Burghley, Lord
Hurd, Sir Percy
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butler, Richard Austen
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romt'd)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Calne, G. R. Hall-
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Levy, Thomas
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.
Lewis, Oswald
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Conant, R. J. E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cook, Thomas A.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.


Cooke, Douglas
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crooka, J. Smedley
Mabane, William
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davlss, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davison, Sir William Henry
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Donner, P. W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sutcliffe, Harold


Doran, Edward
Maitland, Adam
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Dugdals, Captain Thomas Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Marsden, commander Arthur
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Elliot, Major Rt.' Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
White, Henry Graham


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, Walter James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Munro, Patrick
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
North, Edward T.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Banfield, John William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Daggar, George


Batey, Joseph
Cove, William G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, Jamee
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Logan, David Gilbert
Thorne, William James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. G Macdonald.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill): Mr. Glossop; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Drewe, Mr. Glossop, Mr. Leonard, Major Milner, Mr. Louis Smith and Mr. James Stuart; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Banfield, Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Hicks, Captain Arthur Hope, Sir George Hume, and Mr. Kimball.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) Considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Discharge of functions of marketing boards by executive committees.)

(1) Every scheme under the principal Act approved after the commencement of this Act shall require the board to appoint from among the members thereof an executive committee consisting of not more than seven persons, and shall provide—

(a) for the delegation to the said committee of all the functions of the board under the scheme, except such functions, if any, as may be specified in the scheme; and
(b) for securing that during the period specified in the scheme in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act at least one of the members of the board nominated by the Minister in accordance with that proviso shall be a member of the said committee.

(2) In the case of any scheme under the principal Act which was approved before the commencement of this Act the Minister, after consultation with the board, may make an order amending the scheme so as to make it conform with the requirements of the foregoing Sub-section."—[Major Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.32 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause arose out of an undertaking given in the Committee stage. It is a non-party matter. There was a desire expressed to get a business-like body which shall be able to address itself to the day-to-day working of the schemes. It was indicated by those who had had experience of the working of schemes that, with a large board, such as the scheme is to procure, it might—as in the case of the Hops Board, which has 18 members, the Potato Board, which has 33 members, or the Milk Board, with 17 members—find difficulty unless it was able to delegate its powers. It was desired very much that there should be no feeling that the producers were not getting fair consideration of their particular problems. Therefore, I asked the Committee to defer decision on this point
until I had had full consultation with the representatives of the producers. I have been able to have that consultation and the new Clause has been drafted in agreement as a result of that consultation, and I think it fulfils the undertaking. It leaves the board large enough to preserve its representative capacity in regard to the producers all over the country, and it gives an executive committee sufficiently small to permit the appointment thereon of persons who are able to devote not merely a day or two in a month to the duties but perhaps a day or two a. week, and possibly more if need be. It also enables the full board to retain control of the necessary powers, particularly useful powers, which they would desire to retain, such as the power to submit amendments of the schemes or the power to determine the method of regulating sales quantitatively. The second Sub-section provides the simplest procedure that we can devise to apply the new Clause to the existing boards.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been in consultation with some of his friends between the Committee stage and the Report stage. I regret that he has not consulted any hon. Members who sit on these benches. I think we are entitled to some consideration if this whittling down process is to continue. I agree with him when he suggests that a smaller committee for certain purposes might be infinitely better than a large body, but I would point out that origiNaily it was provided that two members should be nominated by the Minister to sit on these boards. We think that in view of the interests of the consumers that are involved in all these marketing schemes the consumer is entitled to know that his side of the business will be looked after. This Bill is something rather different from the original Act of 1931. Not only does the Bill deal with the question of regulating imports, but the Marketing Board, once it has been established, will have the power under the terms of this Bill to propose a development scheme dealing with secondary products. It therefore involves all sorts of industrial interests. Therefore, we say that instead of the nominated members by the Minister being reduced it would have been wise in limit-
ing the number of the members of the Marketing Board, not to reduce the Ministerial nominations from two to one. We cannot alter things if we go to a Division, but in view of the importance of the consumers in all these schemes we think the Minister might have considered them before placing the new Clause on the Order Paper. We shall watch the position from now onwards, and if the Amendments on the Order Paper are a clear indication that the right hon. Gentleman intends to give everything that his colleagues pleaded for upstairs, then the original purpose of the Bill will be wholly side-tracked and instead of its being the Marketing Bill that we look forward to, it will be an Import Restric-tions Bill, with all the conditions hitherto determined upon whittled away to nothing. We do not propose to vote against the New Clause, but we do think that the Minister might have consulted Members on these benches.

3.37 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: If my recollection is right the Minister only gave an undertaking in Committee to consult those whom he has consulted. There was no suggestion that all parties in the House should be consulted, but only the existing representatives on the marketing boards. I do not think, therefore, that there can be any suggestion that the Minister has not done anything that he said he would do. It is very sensible and useful to have small committees which can do the day to day work that must arise if the work under the Act is to be done to the best advantage. Although I see the point as between one member nominated by the Minister and two, I am rather doubtful whether that can properly be made a point of substance if, as one hopes, the Consumers' Council watches these things from the point of view of the consumer. It seems to me that in the New Clause the Minister is doing a useful thing and one in regard to which I do not think any point of disagreement or contention ought to arise.

3.38 p.m.

Lord SCONE: As one of those who upstairs supported an Amendment to reduce the number of members of the board, I want to congratulate the Minister very heartily, not on accepting our Amendment but upon having produced some-
thing of his own which is a great deal better. In the case of the Potato Board with its 30 members it was obvious that one could not get very quick decision from such an unwieldy body, but it has been pointed out that potatoes, which are grown all over the country wherever arable land exists, would require more representatives than a board, say, of only nine would be able to afford. Under the new Clause, while the representatives on the Board will be eligible to put their case, we shall have an executive of sufficiently manageable proportions to ensure that business will be carried on in an expeditous manner.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If I remember rightly this Clause arises out of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). I do not object to a small committee. The Noble Lord made a point about the usefuiness of nominated members. He said that they brought business experience to the board. Why is the right hon. Gentleman limiting it to one member?

3.40 p.m.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: There is one point I wish to put to the Ministry of Agriculture in regard to the size of the board. In the draft scheme from Scotland the board is to consist of eight members, and if they have to appoint a committee of seven members it means that one of the eight people origiNaily nominated to the board will have to be cut out. Would it not be better to alter this proposal and say that where a board is above a certain number, 12 or 14 members, they should be compelled to have a committee of seven to do the executive work? In the case where you have a small board, as in Scotland, of the number of eight, I think the scheme should be left as it was drawn origiNaily and that only in the case of larger boards should this committee of seven be necessary.

3.41 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: This new Clause, I take it, merely means that a large committee will have to elect an executive committee who will have full powers to act. The Minister of Agriculture has power to nominate at least one extra member. In the Act of 1931 he had power to nominate two, and I take it that the new Clause does not prevent the Minister nominating two persons in-
stead of one to a committee if he thinks it necessary. I hope that is clear. The trouble of these boards will be that they will not be up to their business. They require to know the consumers' point of view as well as the producers' point of view. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not prevent the right hon. Gentleman nominating two members instead of one on these small executive committees.

3.43 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: An examination of the arithmetic of the new Clause will show that the fears of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) are not justified. He will agree that the consumers' interests are much better represented by one representative out of seven than by two out of 33.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Thirty-three is the maximum.

Major ELLIOT: The maximum is unlimited; and he will agree that a proportion of one to seven is a much better representation for the consumer than a representation of two out of 33. One hon. Member raised the point why leave it at one nominated member, why not make it two? I think that one out of seven is a fair representation. If you make it two it might lead to accusations of packing the board. That also answers the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). While the Minister of Agriculture may nominate two members to the board he can only insist on one member being a member of the small executive committee. It would be unreasonable to insist on both his nominees being members of the executive committee, although I hope the men nominated will be of such a character that the board itself will desire to have both as members of the executive committee. I hope that will be the result in many cases. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. B. W. Smith) raised the case of small boards consisting of eight persons and. suggested that it was unreasonable to make an order making an executive committee of seven out of a board of eight. That is true, and, consequently, in the case of existing boards it is only provided that the Minister may make such an order; in the case where the board is as small as eight members the Minister would not desire to make an order insisting upon their
nominating a committee of seven. In future, where new boards are set up, they would be set up with the knowledge that this provision exists and it would make it less necessary to pull down the members of the board Since it would be possible to have a large and representative board and a smaller executive committee.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Regulation of importation of agricultural products.)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word "force," to the word "and," in line 3.
I should like, to suggest that this Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the one following, which is to leave out from the word "prepared" in line 1, to the word "and" in line 3, and insert the words "and approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not propose to select the second Amendment. It is unnecessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We understood that all the Amendments were in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Many Amendments are in order which I do not select.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In that case, we will hope that the first Amendment will be accepted. This Amendment is to give the President of the Board of Trade power to regulate imports only when a marketing scheme is in force. This point was debated in Committee, and although we were only represented by four Members we thought that all the arguments and logic were on our side. This is called an Agricultural Marketing Bill, but unless our proposals are accepted it will be an import restrictions Bill, for marketing is certainly not the primary consideration, it is scarcely secondary, so long as the Bill remains as it is at the moment. We regard marketing as being fundamental, and if the right hon. Gentleman, with the assistance of the President of the Board of Trade, feels the necessity for regulating the imports of any agricultural products where an agricultural marketing scheme is in existence we shall have to accept the inevitable, but as the
Bill is now it is ill-defined and more or less meaningless. So long as someone in some part of the British Isles, somewhere at some time, only whispers that an agricultural marketing scheme has been thought about that scheme can be regarded as being in course of preparation. That is not sufficient. An agricultural marketing scheme ought to be in force. The initiative ought to have been displayed by the farmers themselves. This Clause gives power to the President of the Board of Trade to issue an Order for regulating imports. The obvious intention of that is artificially to restrict supplies so that prices may be increased. That ought to be the challenge to the farmer. Unless the farmer is prepared to make a move in the direction of a marketing scheme, so as to get the advantages that the Clause will give him, we do not think that 46,000,000 consumers ought to be called upon to pay the price, until the farmer has made up his mind to have a marketing scheme and an Order has been put into operation.
The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer), said in Committee that there would be no marketing scheme without the assurance of import regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members who cheer that statement will agree that Clause 1 will be a fact very shortly. The necessary assurance therefore, is embodied in the Bill and is no longer merely a theory. Because the regulation guaranteeing the assurance is there, we think that that ought to be a sufficient spur for agriculturists to display initiative and establish marketing schemes as quickly as possible. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that if this Amendment had been accepted in Committee it would tend to discourage marketing schemes. I fail to see the logic of that argument. Unless a marketing scheme was in force no regulation Order could be applied. Clearly, there is the inspiration for agriculturists to get to work as soon as possible, and to produce their marketing schemes so as to secure the advantages of this part of the Clause.
The Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), said in Committee that it sometimes takes two years to produce an agricultural marketing scheme. What does that mean? That the President of the Board of Trade can be satisfied that
a marketing scheme is in course of preparation, but that it may take two years before the scheme is put into force, and that during those two years the products referred to in the scheme can be restricted and regulated. It seems to me that instead of the Amendment discouraging schemes it will encourage them, and that the rejection of the Amendment would deliberately discourage schemes and nullify the intentions of the Minister. Moreover, if it takes two years ordinarily to promote a marketing scheme and prepare it for application, so long as the imported product is regulated the preparation of the scheme may extend to four years or any length of time. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that there is a Market Supply Committee, and that it will have the power to give advice and make recommendations to the Minister. He will say that under Clause 22, while the President of the Board of Trade has power to enforce a scheme and regulations, he also has the power to revoke an Order. That is scarcely sufficient. We ought not to rely on the President of the Board of Trade who may have had a good night or a bad night. Regulation Orders ought not to depend on the temperament of any President of the Board of Trade.
PersoNaily, I expect the President of the Board of Trade to do the right thing at all times. I think that temperamentally he is very stable. I believe that as far as his Government would permit him he would be the watchdog for the consumers of the country. But it is only a few days Since the President of the Board of Trade had a very rough time with many of his colleagues behind him, including the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and several others. The President of the Board of Trade is living a very precarious political life. He may not be there to be the watchdog of the consumers. The Minister of Agriculture, according to the Amendments on the Paper, has already indicated to us how tremendously strong he is in the House of Commons, and how tremeadously weak he is when the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot and one or two others meet in private. If the Minister of Agriculture were to displace the President of the Board of Trade I am afraid we should be in for a very bad time.
We have already had some experience of what the limitation of imports means. The Minister told me a few days ago that Since the restriction of bacon imports, prices of imported and home-produced bacon have increased by about 30 per cent. The Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture stated in the House of Lords last week that as a result of the restriction of imports of chilled beef there had been an increase of 12½ per cent. in prices, while mutton had increased in price by 50 per cent. If consumers in industrial areas, where prosperity is very rare, are to be called upon to pay increased prices varying from 12½ per cent. to 50 per cent.

Major ELLIOT: Those were wholesale prices.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman is really an optimist if he thinks that the wholesaler is to get 50 per cent. more out of the retailer and the retailer not to take it out of the consumer. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's logic, will he tell us what the President of the Board of Trade has been doing during several months past in allowing the retailers to walk away with 50 per cent. more than they are entitled to? The right hon. Gentleman suggests that because wholesale prices have increased by 50 per cent. the consumer does not pay a bigger price. If that is the case, retailers have been deliberately robbing the public, and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who is a supporter of the Government and whose duty it is to look after the consumer, has been neglecting his duty very badly. He ought not to be permitted to continue with this sort of restriction unless and until the 46,000,000 consumers have at least some guarantee that the farmers will make the best use of their opportunities. I know that representatives of farming constituencies may say that it takes so long to produce a marketing scheme because of the Act of 1931, under which it is necessary for them to have meetings, to set up committees, to have a poll, to go to the Minister and get his consent, and then to publish a scheme and to do all sorts of other things.
The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot knows that he, perhaps more than any other single Member of the House,
was responsible for that very prolonged and tiresome procedure. When the original Bill of 1931 was introduced the object was to persuade the farmers to market properly. No one can produce better arguments than the Noble Lord why they should do so. But when the Marketing Bill was in Committee the Noble Lord did his best to make the production of a scheme as difficult as possible. Unfortunately he has been made to pay the price Since. I think we can congratulate him on the part he has played in producing a hop scheme for Kent. He has had some remarkable experiences as the result of his activities in Committee in 1931. If the Minister wants to expedite the production of schemes let him bring in a Bill to make their production much easier, and he will receive no hostility from the Labour benches. The Noble Lord, referring to the question of marketing schemes, made this statement, and I agree with every word:
The degree to which organisation can help the beef and mutton producer is more marked even than it is in other branches. One has only to go to any cattle market in the country to see that if there are 10 beasts more than the dealers require that day, the prices are bad all round, while, if there are three beasts fewer than the requirement, there are good prices all round. A system of organisation, feeding our markets with the numbers required and not putting fanners to the unnecessary expense of driving beasts to market in excess of the demand, would at once put thousands of pounds into the pockets of the farmers of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1932; col. 1364, Vol. 261.]
We agree with him, and, because we agree with him, we appeal to the Noble Lord to support us in this Amendment which, in effect, says to the farmer, "A glut may disturb the price of your product. Well, we have taken power to prevent those gluts in future, but, as compensation to the consumers of this country, it is your plain and unmistakable duty to establish a marketing scheme not only for beef, but for other commodities as rapidly as possible, so that you can take advantage of the opportunity provided by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture." It is because we feel that this Amendment will help the farmers, will not unnecessarily exploit the consumers, but will help organisation and help to bring some element of pros-
perity back to agriculture, that I beg to move the Amendment.

4.2 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: My hon. Friend has made an appeal to me to which I should be very ungracious if I did not respond, he made it in such kind terms. But I am sorry to say that I cannot support the Amendment, because, to my mind, it would defeat one of the chief objects of the Bill. If these words were not in, it would be possible for a market to be so glutted by imports, many of which might come in in anticipation of the schemes going through, that any scheme which was subsequently passed would start its career under totally unfair and impossible conditions. Although these words may not be, perhaps, frequently employed, it appears to me that they are absolutely necessary to give that sort of security which the farmers very naturally demand before they are prepared to embark on marketing schemes.
My hon. Friend has twitted us with the safeguards that we were successful in inserting in the 1931 Act with regard to the preparation of marketing schemes. I, persoNaily, do not regret a single one of those safeguards. To my mind, it is impossible to erect a structure for organised marketing unless you have the wholehearted support of the great Majority of the farmers concerned. You have got to get their whole-hearted support, and you have got to get their confidence, and though the steps which the Act of 1931 provides, by which everyone shall have the opportunity of making objection, and by which there are impartial inquiries and long periods between each stage, may be galling and tiresome to some of us in preparing schemes, they do lay a firm foundation. This is only another one of the securities which are necessary for the firm foundation of every scheme. That is to say, when a scheme comes into force, the farmer should not find the market glutted with imports in anticipation of the scheme coming into operation.

4.4 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: My hon. Friend, in supporting his Amendment, made a somewhat long but very interesting speech, and, as often happens, he replied to himself in the speech he made in support of his Amendment, because he said
that this Bill was in danger of losing its character and becoming a restriction Bill. I am glad to say that it is so, and that it is so recognised, because the Marketing Act and this Bill, which will naturally be a restricting Bill, are two essentials for the one object, the organisation of marketing. Without those two essentials, marketing cannot possibly be done by agriculturists. My Noble Friend has given a second reason why the words proposed to be left out are absolutely essential, because without these words it might be that the preparation of the scheme would take so long that the foreigner would be able to flood the market with his goods and make it impossible for the marketing scheme to work with any satisfaction at all. That is the real object of these words. The President of the Board of Trade has authority to restrict supply if restriction is necessary, and we may take it for granted that the President would rely very largely on the advice given to him and obtained by the Supply Committee. It is only where it is necessary to have restrictions that the Board will make restrictions. With that assurance, I think the consumers will be very well safeguarded, and these words are absolutely essential if we want the Bill to work at all.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I should like to support the arguments of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), and the hon. Member who has just spoken in reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I listened with considerable interest to the arguments of the hon. Member; and I was especially glad to hear him describe this Bill, if I understood him rightly, as a producers' Bill. Some of us have had considerable difficulty in persuading the producers that this was a Measure designed to promote a better state of things for them, and, naturally, I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Don Valley express himself in those terms. I am certain my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) must be very pleased to hear this Bill described as one to help producers, because upstairs it Committee, when we were discussing this Bill Clause by Clause, he did his best to pour cold water on the whole scheme, and suggested that the position of the producers in consequence of this Bill becoming an
Act of Parliament would be worse. I think the hon. Member for Don Valley has to-day done his best to dispel any such illusions. We are now perfectly entitled, when this Amendment is resisted, as it is sure to be by the Minister, to point to the producers and say, "There you are. All our efforts have been, not to weaken your position, but to strengthen it." Subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper, if called, will prove that such is the action of those who are here specially to represent the interests of the agricultural community.
I hope that the hon. Member for Don Valley will not for a moment imagine that we are blind to the interests of the consumer. Far from it. He quoted figures about the rise in wholesale prices which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture at once pointed out had not resulted in a corresponding rise in retail prices, in which the consumers are directly interested. After all, that is all that immediately concerns us. The prices in the country, so far from rising in the. last 18 months, Since the celebrated General Election took place, have shown a continual downward tendency. The consumer, who was not frightened in October, 1931, need have no cause for fresh alarm in May, 1933. It is our direct concern in this House—those of us, I mean, who are connected with agriculture—to see to it that wholesale prices are raised to ensure that the farmer gets a fair and a square deal, and the history of the last 18 months has confirmed us in our contention that, in acting on these lines, the consumer will have nothing whatsoever to fear. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this Amendment, and enable us to get on with the work of securing for the farmer something really constructive to help him in his present very unsatisfactory position, to raise the general condition of agriculture and make it contribute its share in bringing about a better state of things in the country as a whole.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to support the Amendment, and I must admit that I am, surprised at the discussion. The Amendment seeks to do what, I think, the country would expect. During the discussion last year, before this Bill came into the House, one was led to believe by
gentlemen who represent agriculture that, in seeking protection, they made it perfectly clear that they were willing and ready to stand up for a form of efficiency, which included proper marketing. It has been stated by hon. Members, in resisting this Amendment, which is a very mild and very honest Amendment, that it would be impossible for marketing boards to be set up within a limit of two years. We cannot accept that. The farmers were quife willing to set up boards in respect of the wheat subsidy, and it did not take them two years or even two months. We feel perfectly satisfied that the farmers of this country could carry out what is required here, and guarantee to the public what they are entitled to. Before any Minister is given the power of restricting food imports, there ought to be some guarantee if protection is to be given to the industry. Let me remind the hon. Member who has just spoken that there is nobody on this side of the House representing this party who is not anxious to see that the producer gets fair value and the agricultural labourer fair wages for his services, but we do want to feel that, within the limitations of this Bill, no restrictions are in force until the farmer, as we have a right to ask him, has put his own house in order and organised a proper marketing scheme which will meet the requirements of the public before imports are prevented from coming in from outside.
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J, Lamb) gives away his case. He says "We look upon this as a restriction Bill." In the plea for its promotion, they did not talk like that last year, and I suggest very seriously that, in taking the line of argument they are taking now, they are playing false, not only to the House which gave a promise for the introduction of this Bill, but they are playing deliberately false to the promise given during the General Election, because none of its supporters can say that they went so far in the General Election as to say, "If we are returned, we will put undue restrictions on the importation of food, without the slightest consideration, whether our own farming community can produce goods—"

Sir J. LAMB: Will the. hon. Member point out where the word "undue" comes in?

Mr. PRICE: I suggest that if this Amendment is accepted, the Minister can restrict the importation of food without having the slightest guarantee that there is a marketing scheme in any part of the British Isles. From what we heard in reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) at Question Time, nothing is being done yet, as regards the country as a whole, which gives the slightest guarantee to consumers that the farming community are setting themselves out to fill the home market with home-produced goods. This Amendment simply asks that the farmers shall first fulfil their own obligation by producing practical and efficient schemes for the production and marketing of goods so as to meet the requirements of the consuming public in this country. The Bill with this Amendment in it would, in effect, say to the farming community, "When you have proved that you are in a position to do that, the State will give you full protection from foreign imports."
What more does agriculture want? If the farming community cannot stand up to that proposition their whole case is lost. Agricultural Members of this House will regret in the near future the rejection of an Amendment of this kind which asks for nothing else but the simple proof that agriculture shall deliver the goods. If the farmers are willing to put their house in order this offers to give the farmers far more than a tariff, to give them complete protection, but in reply apparently the farmers say: "No; we want protection before marketing schemes are promoted or properly organised." It must be recognised that apart from the agricultural producers, for whom we have tremendous sympathy there is an immense body of consumers engaged in other industries. Those consumers are entitled to ask from the agricultural industry what is demanded from every other industry, on every occasion when the affairs of that industry are discussed on the Floor of the House. Every industry is told "Before you ask the State to make a contribution to your protection you must put your own house in order."
In this case it is not a question of some degree of protection but of prohibition of imports. I think the hon. Member for Don Valley is to be thanked for moving
the Amendment and that the Minister and the agricultural representative would be well advised to accept it, and to prove to the country that agriculture is ready to promote schemes for efficient production and marketing. Before asking the country to exercise a total prohibition of imports of this kind the agricultural industry ought to prove to the industrial workers, who are the consumers, that they can deliver the goods. Apparently, the agricultural community are unwilling to face up to that proposal. If this Amendment is not going to get any more sympathy than has been indicated, then I feel that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is right in describing this as a Restriction of Imports Bill and not as a Marketing Bill, but the agricultural industry as a whole will regret it in future years.
There is a great opportunity here for the agricultural industry to reorganise itself with the full backing and support of the consumers, but, if this Amendment is rejected, then we must take it that this is nothing else but a Restriction of Imports Bill, to advance the policy of the Conservatives, without the slightest consideration for the distress of other industries in the country. The Bill will only be another step in the policy of this Government with its restrictions and tariffs and barriers to trade and commerce in general.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: There was one statement which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) with which every Member will agree, to the effect that it was certain that the Minister would resist this Amendment. This is the most vital Amendment on the Paper. It raises the issue as to whether the agricultural industry shall first make itself efficient and then claim limitation of imports, or whether there shall be limitation of imports irrespective of the efficiency or inefficiency of the agricultural industry. It is strange that so little use has been made of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. I do not think that agriculture wants the marketing Clauses of this Bill. What agriculture is concerned about is that it should receive help by way of limitation of imports, though I think it would have preferred a tariff on imported agricultural products. The Amendment seeks to make it a condition that a marketing scheme shall be in
force before any help by way of import restriction is given.
As far as we on these benches are concerned, we like neither your quotas nor your tariffs but if you are to have quotas the industry should show itself prepared to organise itself properly. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) mentioned certain remarks which were made in Committee upstairs by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) who told us that it might take two years to complete a scheme. That means that the inefficiency, which is admitted on every hand with regard to marketing, can continue for a further two years and the consumer because of limitation of imports, can be called upon to pay higher prices. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade what is meant by the words:
or is shown to the satisfaction of the board, to be in course of preparation"?
I know that in Committee we were given the definition:
immediately a scheme has been conceived and directed to be prepared.
I suggest that any number of men meeting together and passing a resolution to the effect that a scheme should be prepared, would suffice under those terms to ensure the President of the Board of Trade making an Order limiting those imports. What guarantee has the consumer against delay in the formulating of schemes? The objection to the Act of 1931 was that there was no prospect of limitation of imports. The farmer in this Bill has the certainty of limitation of imports, and no excuse can be made on that ground as regards delay in the preparation of schemes, but I think—and I feel that the agricultural Members themselves recognise this—that there will be tremendous opposition by the farmers to the preparation of these schemes. All these schemes are unpopular in the minds of farmers and we are perfectly justified in asking that before protection of this kind is given to the producers, an efficient marketing scheme should be in force. Provision is made in this Bill that schemes shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Why should not this House have an opportunity of considering whether a marketing scheme is good or bad before protection is given by way of limitation of imports?

Viscount WOLMER: An Order has to be laid before Parliament also.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It will be very difficult to cancel one of these Orders once you have limitation of imports and it should be a condition of any restrictive Order that a proper marketing scheme shall be in force. In Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment to insert the words:
and it is shown to the satisfaction of the board that it will be in operation within a period of three months from the date when, the order is made.
Under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible to go on for any number of years without bringing into force a marketing scheme. Due consideration ought to be given to what I regard as the very reasonable proposal that some period should be fixed—if not three months then perhaps six months—in which a scheme should be brought into force. The Minister opposed that Amendment in Committee because he said he objected to the bureaucracy in Whitehall "hustling the great agricultural industry." My objection is to the agricultural industry lingering for a period of years without doing anything. I do not want to hustle them but—agriculture is not noted for speed and the industry should be called upon, within some period, to show that it is making itself efficient. The Amendment which we are now considering will not hustle anybody. It is simply an indication to the farmers that the sooner they put their own house in order the sooner can they legitimately claim protection under the terms of the Bill. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to give us a guarantee before this Bill goes further that some time limit will be inserted making it incumbent on farmers to bring schemes into operation at least within a reasonable time. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: It seems to me that there is a little confusion in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of this Amendment and I suggest to the Mover that he used terms of exaggeration. His suggestion in effect seemed to be that if there was a rumour that somehow, somewhere in the British Isles, there was to be a marketing scheme, that would be assumed to be a direction to the Board of Trade immediately to issue an Order regulating the
import of the product concerned. Another hon. Member seemed to suggest that any scheme which was put into operation must be a success before any regulation of imports could be considered. The argument was that before any regulation of an import was put into operation, the efficiency of the home producers of the commodity ought to be proved. I think hon. Members who argue in that way ovErieok this possibility. It may be that a scheme can only achieve success by a combination of the efficiency of the home producer and the help given by the regulation of foreign imports. Furthermore, hon. Members in dealing with these agricultural questions must bear in mind that our farmers labour under some degree of inequality in relation to foreign producers, in that the foreigners in many cases have a more equable climate and can depend much more reliably upon their crops than our farmers can here. The interests of the consumers were mentioned, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the fact that, before making any Order for the regulation of imports, there are specifically set out in Sub-section (3) of this Clause very definite considerations which the Board must have in mind. If hon. Members will refer to that Subsection, they will find that at the very outset, before any Order is made:
the Board of Trade shall…have regard to the interests of consumers of the product to which the order relates…and to the effect which the regulation of the importation of that product into the United Kingdom is likely to have upon commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries,
and, furthermore, that
the board shall not make such an order unless they are satisfied that it is not at variance with any treaty, convention or agreement …In force between His Majesty and any foreign Power.
Unlike some of those who have opposed this Amendment, I credit the Board of Trade, no matter who may be the particular individual at its head, with sufficient wisdom to take into account all these considerations before making an Order, and I am satisfied that, if the Amendment were to be accepted, it would materially damage, if not make impossible, the preparation of schemes which, if carried into effect, would in the long run be of benefit to agriculture generally.

4.32 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am surprised at the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) is a professional gentleman, with a practice in accountancy, and he is proposing that the House should give a certificate or sign a balance-sheet, as accountants frequently do, out without having the books properly prepared and completed. Does he suggest that he would sign any balance-sheet in those conditions, if a mere promise had been made that the books would be completed or that they were in course of preparation? Of course not.

Mr. MAITLAND: The hon. and gallant Member asks a specific question. The specific answer is that there is no analogy between the two cases.

Major MILNER: There is every analogy. The hon. Member is putting the cart before the horse. I am quite sure he cannot quote any case to the House of a course of procedure such as is proposed in this Clause. To begin with, the words of the Bill are so vague. What in the world do the words "in course of preparation" mean? One of my hon. Friends in Committee asked if they meant that, if he had a dream some night that he had prepared a marketing scheme, that would be sufficient to bring to the notice of the board; or did it mean that, if there was a scheme which, when drawn up, would take 10 pages and he had done the first page and submitted that to the Board of Trade, they would be satisfied that the scheme was in course of preparation? The whole proposal is replete with absurdities of that sort, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would have a difficulty in showing words anything like so vague in any other Act of Parliament of similar importance to this.
The truth is—and it becomes more apparent every day—that this Bill is not in the true line of succession from the original Agricultural Marketing Act. I have always recognised that some regulation of imports was necessary. We on these benches have on many occasions preached regulation by means of import boards, whereby authority would be set up to purchase the necessary supplies, the home supplies first and then foreign supplies, and then to sell the particular com-
modity concerned at a reasonable price to the consumer, which would yet enable substantial advantages to be given to the home producer. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman departs altogether from that principle or suggestion and proposes to close up the avenue from which the greater portion of our supplies of these commodities come in—something over 90 per cent. in the case of some commodities, like bacon, and a very large proportion in the case of other commodities. Then, at some later date perhaps, he prevails upon the farmers to put forward a scheme, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that any scheme need ever be prepared or put forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) indicated, there was an Amendment in Committee proposing that an Order should be done away with in the event of a scheme not coming into force within, I think, three months. We were prepared to support that provision, but at present there is no obligation whatever on the farmers or anyone else, or even on the Ministry, to initiate an agricultural marketing scheme. It becomes more and more apparent that the principal thing in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government generally is at all costs, in place of a tariff, to adopt a quota system, with a view to restricting imports. Whether or not the agricultural industry organises itself, is a matter of secondary concern to them. First, they will control the imports, and they will do that for the sole purpose of putting up prices. They are not concerned, apparently, with who shall pay those prices, or how they will pay, or whether the prices shall rise 10 per cent,, or 50 per cent., or 100 per cent.
The curious thing in regard to the suggestion that we so often hear, to the effect that we must have a rise in commodity prices, is that it never seems to strike those who put forward that argument that they are again putting the cart before the horse, that it is impossible, if the price is raised above a certain limit, for consumers to purchase. Consumers in this country and elsewhere have not the purchasing power to purchase commodities at any higher price than that at which those commodities are now sold, and one would have thought, therefore, that the first concern on the
part of the Government would be to increase the purchasing power of the people. Just the contrary is the case. Their first proposals are, and have been for many months past, to put up prices, irrespective of whether consumers can purchase, and afterwards to consider, if in fact they ever do consider, the matter of providing the purchasing power.
We, on this side, take exception to the wording of this Clause, which we think vague and ill-defined. We think it is wrong to put restriction first and marketing schemes afterwards. I agree that the ideal method would be to have a marketing scheme and restriction coming into force contemporaneously. It is possible that it might not be convenient to make that arrangement, but at any rate it could be approximated to in some measure, and if, as we suggest, a marketing scheme should have to be brought into force, there is no reason why the restriction should not come into force on the same day or on an earlier day. There can be no justification for imposing restriction first and leaving the marketing scheme to the dim and distant future, with no guarantee that it will come into force at all. I should also have thought that there was a very definite practical advantage in the course which we suggest.
We are always being told, from all sides of the House, and not least from the Government benches, that farmers are a somewhat difficult and conservative class in the community, and that it is only with great difficulty that they are persuaded, as the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) once told us, to approve of marketing schemes, emanating, as they origiNaily did, from a Labour Minister of Agriculture, in the person of Dr. Addison. One would have thought that it would have been the policy of the Government to hold out some inducement to the farmers to bring themselves into line, to draw up and submit a marketing scheme, and to obtain the approval of the appropriate authority thereto, instead of which the opposite course is proposed. You put restriction first and then leave it to posterity to bring in a marketing scheme. I should have thought that there would have been a distinct tactical advantage in saying to the farmers, "Put your house in order. Draw up and submit your scheme, and the moment it is
approved, we will give you the appropriate protection, in whatever form may be best; and we shall do that contemporaneously with the marketing scheme coming into force."
In that way there would be an inducement to the farming community to tackle this problem in regard to every commodity, and generally to put their house in order and be in a position to take immediate advantage of the situation created by the coming into force of a marketing scheme, in the first place, and of a restrictive order in the second place. It may be that the farming community may not trouble to take steps to bring forward a scheme. They may do what the iron and steel industry have done with regard to the organisation which they promised to carry into effect, if import duties were imposed on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Time has gone on, but no scheme has come forward from that industry, and similarly, I prophesy, it will be the case with the agricultural industry. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this practical proposition and agree that in all the circumstances the view which we put forward is the right one.

4.43 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The Amendment represents a difference of method. Everybody in the House realises that in agriculture the essential is marketing, and everybody wants to assist the formation and the putting into fcrce of the best possible marketing scheme. The object of the Amendment is to say that a marketing scheme shall not be accompanied by a restriction of imports unless that scheme has previously not only been prepared—the false analogy of the balance-sheet, which the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) endeavoured to put forward—but has been put in force. Marketing schemes are made possible under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, but that Act may be found to be largely ineffective, because it lacked the element of the restriction of foreign imports. The improvement of the present Measure over the Act of 1931 is that it does link, not necessarily restriction, but the power to restrict, with the making of market-
ing schemes, and hon. and right hon. Members opposite who are responsible for the Amendment desire that the marketing scheme should succeed. They would be the last to desire that a marketing scheme when made should be defeated by the incoming of goods from abroad to such an extent that all the provisions of the marketing scheme proved unworkable. The question between us is whether the President of the Board of Trade should be given power to control that importation at a time when it is of some use, or only be given the power after a scheme has been defeated. We think that the time to save the ship is while it is still afloat, and not after it has sunk.

Major MILNER: Our suggestion is that the one should precede the other, and not that you should allow a scheme to be defeated before bringing in the restrictions.

Dr. BURGIN: One of the great difficulties in this House is to convInce hon. Members of the entirely new set of circumstances which confront the world, namely, the economics of glut. An entirely new orientation of mind is necessary to deal with the problem, which is one of swamping and not of scarcity. Hon. Members talk of the difficulties of restricting. The real difficulty is in allowing unrestricted imports, and here in this case we say that the President of the Board of Trade is to be given power to restrict so soon as a marketing scheme can be proved to his satisfaction to be in course of preparation—not, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), "through the communication of a whisper." That is not the way in which Government Departments communicate with the Board of Trade. I can assure the hon. Member with some experience that something more than a whisper reaches the Board of Trade when it is desired that they should act, especially in such a matter as the restriction of imports. The Board of Trade is to have power to restrict imports if a marketing scheme has been prepared or is shown to the satisfaction of the President to be in course of preparation.
Surely that is a very definite status for a marketing scheme. It is not a question of a number of people meeting round a table and airily debating whether or not a scheme would be desirable. That is not
the point. Somebody has to satisfy the Board of Trade that a scheme is in course of preparation, and, under paragraph (6) of Clause 1 (1), the President has also to be satisfied that, unless an order is made by him, the reorganisation of the particular branch of the industry cannot fully be effected. This Amendment would unduly limit the powers of the Board of Trade and would very likely defeat the whole object which the scheme seeks to achieve, and it must be resisted in consequence. We live in a time of glut, and restriction is essential. I have said nothing of forestalling, to which reference has been made, but I could give the House a number of reasons for showing why in many practical instances restriction is necessary first before putting a scheme into force in order that the objects of the scheme may be achieved.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Sufficient has been said on both sides to justify the moving of this Amendment, and no finer arguments could have been brought forward than those which have come from Members in all parts in their attempts to oppose it. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) said that he was glad that this was a restrictive Clause. The hon. Member truly represents the agricultural constituencies, which he never forgets in this House, and he says to-day, as he said in Committee, that he wants this Bill to be first and last a restriction upon the supply of goods coming into the British market. He wants scarcity to be created.

Sir J. LAMB: No.

Mr. GRENFELL: What does restriction mean? I take the hon. Gentleman at his word. If restriction means anything, it means a scarcity, a limitation of supply.

Sir J. LAMB: I never said that I wished for a scarcity, and it is not on the records of the Committee or the House that I used such words. I want a limitation when it is proved to be necessary.

Mr. GRENFELL: That is the point, and I will follow it up. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) argued in the same way. He said that the Bill had a two-fold object—efficient production at home accompanied by a restriction or regulation of imported products. He rightly insisted, and, in doing
so carried the whole House with him in putting efficiency of production at home first. The hon. Member for Stone never referred to the primary object of the principal Act upon which this Bill is based, that object being to improve and to perfect the marketing organisation in order, hot that a condition of scarcity and high prices might be achieved, but that a condition which would give a fair measure of remuneration to those engaged in agriculture in this country should be brought about. We desire that as strongly as Members on the other side, but we do not believe that the precipitant power which is conferred on the Minister should be given to him at this point.
We are now dealing with the vital Clause of the Bill, for it lays down the condition under which foreign argicultural produce may be regulated. It does not really mean that. It means, as the hon. Member for Stone says, limitation or restriction or prohibition. We must come to that some time or other. There must be reached a time when the various products of agriculture for which marketing schemes are adopted must be limited or restricted or prohibited. The Clause first provides that regulation shall take place, and the vital point is in the words:
after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, may make an order regulating the importation into the United Kingdom of any such agricultural product as may be specified in the order.
All we desire to do is to lay down that that Order shall not be issued until a marketing scheme is in force. We claim that the words providing that a marketing scheme must be in force or must be shown to the satisfaction of the board to be in course of preparation are not an adequate protection to those people who will be affected, possibly adversely affected, by the intention of the Clause to confer an advantage upon agriculture. After all, there is the large section of consumers to be taken into account. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) paid the Minister of Agriculture a compliment for his urbanity of manner, and said that he had a suitable temperament to be the watchdog of the consumers' interest, but that he could not always be trusted. It is a well-known fact that the watchdog that
wags his tail is a much more dangerous watchdog than the dog that barks. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman always allows us to come very near him, and we must be very careful that he does not bite before we become aware of his intentions. We do not trust him in regard to this, and the effect of these limitations require to be examined more closely.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said in an interruption to-day that while wholesale prices had risen there was no evidence that retail prices had risen in a corresponding measure. What is the advantage to the farmer of this country, whom we are out to protect, unless there is to be an increase in retail prices? There can be no value or purpose at all in this Bill unless there is to be an increase in retail prices to the consumer. If the Minister wishes to make sure that there will be no increase in retail prices, why does he not join with us in this Amendment? We say that before there is restriction on the importation of foreign products we shall make sure that the marketing scheme which the producers want is in operation; make sure that there is an efficient marketing scheme and that there is no waste, overlapping or unnecessary expense in bringing products to the consumer. The only way to improve the remuneration of the farmer without raising retail prices is to effect economy in marketing methods. Before we restrict imports we should make sure that it will not create a condition of scarcity which will lead to high prices. If 10 people go to market to buy and there are only nine to to sell prices will go up, but if there are 10 to sell and nine to buy, prices will go down. That is a consequential effect, and nothing can alter it. The only safe way before imposing restrictions is to see that a marketing scheme is in force, to see that the utmost efficiency is maintained in marketing methods, and to ascertain if the market is in danger of being over flooded.
We are against a system of quantitative regulation and we have always insisted on, and shall always urge against this Bill, the need for increasing home production. We do not believe that by creating scarcity of foreign or home-produced goods agriculture will be ultimately benefited. The Minister may reply that
"in course of preparation" means that a scheme will be ready within a few weeks, but it might be a much longer time than that. It may be in course of preparation with good prospects of completion and then break down. There is no provision in the Bill for that contingency, so that if a scheme breaks down the Order shall be withdrawn. We say that we should not run the risk of allowing an Order to create a scarcity with the consequential rise in prices which must injure the interests of large masses of industrial consumers.
I want to say something to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Walmer), who has just returned to the House. Time and time again the Noble Lord has shown how little confidence he has in the British farmer. His argument was that the British farmer would not move, being conservative like himself, and, I dare say, sharing his political views and his complacent attitude to the world in general. The Noble Lord said of the British farmer: "You can snow him under with goods from all parts of the world, and close up the doors of his barns and his cowsheds, and still he will not move. What you have to do is to stop these importations. Let the farmer alone, create a scarcity, appeal to him nicely, and in course of time he may be converted to the principle of this scheme." I know the farmer pretty well, and I know that he is practical person, and I do not know anything that will compel him to make up his mind more quickly than competition from foreign producers. If that does not make him respond, I do not know what will, and we ask the Noble Lord, in the interest of his conservative farmers, to join with us in seeing that no Protection is given to indifferent farmers. If the farmer gets this measure of assistance he ought to be called upon to play his part. Let the farmer bring in his marketing schemes, and then, not because of our choice, we shall be compelled to accept the latter part of the Bill.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade sought to persuade the House that the difference which exists between those who support the Amendment and himself is a difference purely of method. With due respect I wish to dissent strongly from
that proposition. It is a difference of policy. On this Amendment we cannot debate the general policy of regulating imports, but there is a question of policy here. Assuming that the country does adopt that policy of regulating imports, under what conditions will it be put into operation? The Government have shown by the terms of Clause 1 that when they are embarking upon a policy of regulating imports they are entitled to lay down certain conditions, and they say to those who ask for an Order limiting importations, "Before we make such an Order you shall do certain things." An hon. Member on the opposite side spoke just now about the necessity of requiring agriculture to establish its efficiency. This Clause does not do anything of that sort.
The conditions laid down by the Clause are not at all exacting. It is true that in paragraph (b) the Board of Trade have to be satisfied that unless they make an Order the organisation of the industry will he imperilled, but in paragraph (a) it does not say definitely that a marketing scheme must be in force—I should have no complaint in regard to that condition, because obviously it was one the Government were entitled to demand from the industry—but that it will suffice if a marketing scheme "has been prepared"—and I do not particularly quarrel with those words— or "is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade to be in course of preparation." I submit that this last provision is giving the Government larger powers than they are entitled to ask. Before the Government put into operation their policy of restricting imports they ought to be satisfied that the other party to the bargain, if I may so call it, is playing his part. There is no security in this Clause that the other party will be called upon to play his part. The hon. Gentleman said, "A mere whisper will not do," but he did not say what will do, and he cannot say what will do, because conditions may vary from time to time and vary very much with the particular type of people with whom the Board of Trade have to deal.
It may be difficult to give any definition of what will be regarded as being "to the satisfaction of the board," hut why cannot the Government do this same thing in another way? I think I am right in saying that in Committee upstairs some time limit was suggested, so that when
a branch of the industry applied for an Order and said that a scheme was in course of preparation the Board of Trade should be entitled to say, "We are not satisfied that you are preparing a scheme; you must produce it in a certain time in order to satisfy us of your bona fides." The Government are asking for excessive powers in asking for those words to be inserted in the Clause. I feel that they are unfortunate words to introduce into an Act of Parliament, and I should think that an experienced and able lawyer like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would have devised words of a more certain and clear meaning. Another answer to the Amendment was that restrictions might sometimes have to be imposed before a marketing scheme was ready. The Government could obtain power from Parliament to impose such restrictions as soon as they felt satisfied that they were necessary. That is the policy they have pursued in other matters, and there is no reason why they should not adopt that policy in this case.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. TOM SMITH: A point which I would like to emphasise is the necessity for making clear the meaning of the words:
shown, to the satisfaction of the board, to be in course of preparation.
We would like the Minister to tell us definitely what is meant by those words. The Board of Trade may be satisfied that a scheme is in course of preparation and, on the strength of that, impose a limitation on imports, and then, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said, for some reason or other, that scheme may break down before it is ever put into operation. Farmers are like most other employers, neither better nor worse; they want all the help the State can give, with as little interference as possible in their business, A limitation of imports without a marketing scheme may mean an increase in the price of commodities for the consumer, and that rise in prices may not hasten those responsible for a marketing scheme in getting the scheme completed. We want to see these marketing schemes successful. Anyone with any knowledge of agriculture knows that there is a tremendous difference between the price received by the grower in this country and the price
of the commodities when they get to market, and if anything can be done to institute organised marketing, so that the producer can get a better return and be in a position to pay a better wage to his employers, none will be better pleased than us on these benches. But we feel that the language of this paragraph is too vague and too loose, and that agriculturists should be asked to show some signs of having an organised marketing scheme in operation before they get a limitation of imports, and I hope the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will press this Amendment to a Division.

5.10 p.m.

Sir SAMUEL ROSBOTHAM: I do not want to intervene for more than a minute or two, but I must deny the allegation put forward that it is the desire of the farmer to create a scarcity. That is entirely erroneous, We have been inclined to get away from the practical question of what it is that the Bill is intended to do. Its object is to give to the producer, the cultivator of the soil, a price for his produce which will enable him to cultivate the land and to pay a fair rate of wages to those whom he employs. Much of the criticism has complained that the wording of the Clause is too vague. I would like to draw attention to the fact that you cannot hurry nature, and that there are many products which take a long time to grow. For example, it may be four or five years before there is any yield from some trees. Why should it be necessary for a scheme to be actually in operation if the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied that it is in course of preparation? I was pleased to hear

the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) say that the real object of the Bill, to his mind, was to do away with the great difference between the prices received by the producer and those of the retailer. That is the real object of the Bill. Farmers have bad no encouragement to prepare schemes in the past. They have been overwhelmed by the large quantities of foreign produce coming in. Let us get this Bill on the Statute Book and then we shall see that farmers are very keen to put forward schemes. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) deserves great credit for what he has done in bringing into operation the first marketing scheme. He worked very hard upon that. I would like to ask the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Bradford whether he is prepared to advise the Liberal candidate in the Altrincham Division that the Liberal party are not in favour of quotas, that they are not in favour of tariffs and are not in favour of restrictions? If Liberals are prepared to tell the farmers in Altrincham that they are willing to vote for the repeal of the wheat quota, which has saved the situation in many arable districts during last season, we shall believe that there is something honest about what they state in the House of Commons. I trust that the Amendment will be rejected, and that we shall go forward and get this Bill on the Statute Book as early as possible.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 48.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
15.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Leut.-Colonel
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cooke, Douglas


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cooper, A. Duff


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Broadbent, Colonel John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Atholl, Duchess of
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cross, R. H.


Baillle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davison, Sir William Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dickie, John P.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Donner, P. W.


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Doran, Edward


Blindell, James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Drewe, Cedric


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Duggan, Hubert John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Dunglass, Lord


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cook, Thomas A.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ropner, Colonel L.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Runge, Norah Cecil


Entwietle, Cyril Fuilard
Lymington, Viscount
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mabane, William
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew. Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fox, Sir Gifford
McCorquodale, M. S.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Gillett, Sir George Maeterman
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Scone, Lord


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Goff, sir Park
Macquleten, Frederick Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Goldie, Noel B.
Maitland, Adam
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smithers, Waldron


Granville, Edgar
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Martin, Thomas B.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spens, William Patrick


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Hales, Harold K.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stones, James


Hanbury, Cecil
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomae C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart


Hartington, Marquess of
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Summersby, Charles H.


Hartland, George A.
Morrison, William Shephard
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
North, Edward T.
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horsbrugh, Fiorence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Waiisend)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nitaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hurd, Sir Percy
Potter, John
Weymouth, Viscount


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
PowNail, Sir Assheton
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pybus, Percy Jobn
Wills, Wilfrld D.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rakes, Henry V. A. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wise, Alfred R.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rankin, Robert
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ray, Sir William
Womersley, Walter James


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, John R.



Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Levy, Thomas
Lewis, Oswald
Sir George Penny and Lord


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Robinson, John Roland
Erskine.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner. Major James


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Price, Gabriel


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rothschild, James A. de


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, sir Percy
Samuel, Rt. Hen. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hieks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hoidsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Laweon, John James
Williams Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

5.22 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word "made," to the end of line 8, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the effective organisation and development of that branch of the said industry under an agricultural marketing scheme cannot be brought about or cannot be maintained.
This is put forward in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave to the Committee. The point was raised there as to whether the word "reorganisation" was too narrow. Organisation was necessary, but the question was as to whether it was reorganisation. It was necessary to cover the ease where an efficient organisation required to be maintained. In the case of an article where a marketing scheme was already in operation, it was obviously desirable to maintain an efficient organisation, just as it was necessary to set up an organisation where no organisation existed. I was asked from various sides of the Committee, the Opposition side included, whether it was the desire of the Government to expand food production, and consequently I am inserting here the word "development," indicating thereby that it is the desire of the Government that organisation and development of the agricultural industry should take place.
If I were asked for an illustration of development I should certainly give the Lane Fox scheme as one example. Development should be orderly, it should not go beyond what the market can stand, and it should, of course, be carried out with due regard to the interests of other suppliers of the market. It should be clear that all sides of the Committee desired, and I believe that all sides of the House will desire, that this new development should not be merely in the restriction of supplies but also in the replacement of supplies. If the home producer can deliver the goods, he should be allowed to do so, and the expanding share of the home market, which has been the subject of more than one declaration by the Government, should find some recognition in the words of the Statute.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We have no fundamental objection to this proposal of the Minister, but I rather regret that the word "reorganisation" is to be deleted. The Lane Fox Commission was a reorganisation Commission, and their Recommendations were based upon the necessity for the reorganisation of that phase of agriculture. While effective organisation may possibly be as comprehensive and all-inclusive as reorganisation, I should prefer that the word
"reorganisation" remained in the Clause, even though the right hon. Gentleman followed it with "efficient organisation," if those words would meet the situation. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about a continually expanding market for homegrown produce, I wish to pay a compliment to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). Was ever a reward for persistence so definite and conclusive as the Amendment that we are now discussing? On the second day's proceedings, the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury moved an Amendment to insert the words:
the economic stability of that branch of the industry, including the guaranteeing to the home producer of a regulated product of a market therefor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Commitee C), 30th March, 1933; col. 59.]
That Amendment was not accepted on that day, so the hon. and gallant Member proceded on the following day to move another Amendment, or I should say that he provoked the hon. Member for Stone to move this Amendment:
The need for securing that the maintenance and expansion of the production in the United Kingdom of the product to which the Order relates shall be duly promoted in conformity with the purpose of the agricultural marketing scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 4th April, 1933, col. 111.]
That Amendment was not accepted, so the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to proceed to the fifth day's proceedings, where another Amendment was moved. He was constantly on the toes of the poor, miserable, wretched Minister. That Amendment was to insert the words:
including the guaranteeing to the home producer of a regulated product of a market therefor and the securing to such producer of a continuing preferential position in the home markets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committe C), 11th April, 1933, col. 180.]
It was not accepted, so the hon. Member for Stone, on the same day, moved another Amendment to insert the words:
and so that no order made under this section may restrict the Quantity of any product which may be sold unless the said Minister and Secretaries of State are satisfied that the restriction will not operate in such fashion as to guarantee a market in the United Kingdom to imported produce at the expense of persons producing the
regulated product in the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 11th April, 1933, col. 201.]
The hon. Member for Stone was unsuccessful. The hon. Members all went forward therefore to the seventh day's proceedings.

Brigadier-General BROWN: On a point of Order. In order that the hon. Member may read out more occasions on which we did those things, may I ask for the light?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought I was throwing some light upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman's activities. During the seventh day's proceedings one of the hon. and gallant Member's colleagues, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) moved another Amendment containing these words:
including the guaranteeing to the home producer of a regulated product of a market therefor,
and so forth. That was the fifth Amendment moved in almost identical words during the space of four days in the Committee stage. The poor Minister could bear it no longer, and, therefore, replying to the Debate, he said:
I do not in any way recede from the pledge I have given, that I will do my best to meet the words: 'guaranteeing to the home producer of a regulated product of a market therefor …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 2nd May, 1933; cols. 267–72.]
If that is not the reward of persistency, I have never seen it anywhere at any time. Hon. Members moved day after day similar Amendments which the Minister had to reject, but ultimately he has had to concede to them this point, which he knows never can be carried out; but the Noble Lord, the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury, and the hon. Member for Stone are satisfied now that the Minister has made this statement and introduced this Amendment, and we do not think we ought to condemn them. All I would say is that they taught us a lesson in that Committee room, and, when the opportunity comes our way, we shall not hesitate to be as persistent as they have been, and to secure results similar to those which have been forthcoming from their persistency.

Amendment agreed to.

5.33 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "kind, variety or grade," and to insert instead thereof the word "description."
I am assured by the draftsmen that this will avoid the possibility of error which may be inherent in the previous words.

Amendment agreed to.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
or
(b) the descriptions of the product which may be imported.
This brings the wording of the Clause into line with that of Clause 2, and, further, carries out an undertaking which I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. D. G RENFELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Before making an order under this section the Board of Trade shall be satisfied that adequate supplies of the product at reasonable prices will be available and.
I think that this Amendment is amply justified by the evidence which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) of the persistency and astuteness of the agricultural Members of the Committee and the way in which they have persuaded the Minister to alter the original wording of the Bill. We heard a great deal in Committee about the subject of the Minister's recent Amendment, and some light was cast upon the origin of the word "development." My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley rightly pointed to the ever-present desire of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). They put their heads together in Committee, and withdrew them when the Minister happened to look round, because they did not want to be seen to be in too close consultation. After five days' conspiring and planning to undermine the loyalty of their colleagues, they compelled the Minister to introduce this word, which has a meaning that was never intended in the original Bill. They may well look pleased. No doubt they will go back to
their constituents and point to the success of their efforts, and will expect in due course to be re-elected to this House for the purpose of carrying on further the kind of work for which they are now responsible.
This is most dangerous to the great mass of people who are not represented by hon. Members opposite, but who are represented, in the main, by people on this side of the House. What is implied in the Amendment to which I have referred, and what is intended in the Bill up to this point, is that there shall be maintained, not a scarcity in the sense of famine, but a short market, and it was urged by hon. Members in Committee that the farmer should always know in advance that that market—a large market, in which he could dispose of his goods at a good price—always awaited his harvest time and the product of his season's work. Hon. Gentlemen insisted upon that one after another, and now we find that that guarantee has been given. The restriction is not to be confined to keeping the market in a state of comparative freedom from gluts, but there is always to be a sufficient limitation or restriction to enable the farmer to look forward at the end of the season, or even the next season, to a constant and gradual development of the industry.
We shall be able to show later that what the representatives of the agricultural interests in this House have in mind is a guaranteed market without any suggestion of price at all. It is not suggested that those in the industry shall give guarantees themselves; what they want is a guaranteed market, and we ask, in the interests of the consumers, that an Order of this kind shall not be granted unless there is an assurance that there are always in the market sufficient and adequate supplies at reasonable prices of the products which are to be regulated. We do not suggest that there should not be regulation. The point has been carried against us, and we have to make the best of the Bill. But we desire to ensure that, when the people go into the markets— the mass of the wage-earning population of this country, whose incomes are far too small and whose budgeting power is more limited than it should be—they shall be protected against having to go
into the market in the face of steadily advancing prices.
The Minister will say, no doubt, that these words are not necessary because later on there is a provision that the Board of Trade shall have regard, among other considerations, to the interests of consumers of the product to which the Order relates, but, if he makes that acknowledgment, I would point out that that provision was in the Bill before his recent Amendment was inserted, and that Amendment, having been made, means, if it means anything, that there shall always be a margin of scarcity, of shortage, which will be to the advantage of the home producer and will militate against the consumer, who always has the advantage when there is an extra supply of goods in the market. The Bill now contains a provision for keeping the market sufficiently low to give the agriculturist the opportunity for further development of his home production, and that in itself implies a scarcity. We wish it to be laid down, not merely in general terms, but specifically for the guidance of the Minister, that the interests of the consumer shall be considered, and that,
Before making an Order under this Section, the Board of Trade shall be satisfied that adequate supplies of the product at reasonable prices will be available.
I may be asked: "What do you mean by adequate supplies?" It is very difficult to say, but I think that the supply is adequate, and just adequate, when prices remain constant. If prices tend to rise, that is almost certain evidence that the demand is greater than the supply. The question of reasonable prices is connected with the question of reasonable supplies, and is a kind of safety valve which determines the adequacy of the supply or otherwise. As one who represents consumers, I am sure we ought to insist that reasonable prices should be maintained. We do not say that they should be the very lowest prices, but we all know what reasonable prices mean— not the prices of superabundance, not the prices paid for fruit occasioNaily in times of glut, or for fish when the boats come back over-loaded to the ports, but reasonable prices which will give to the producer a reasonable reward for his efforts. We all agree upon that point, but we would like to see in the Bill some safeguard against the exploitation of the consumer. I am sure no one will question
the fact that, given this Order, and given the power to create a shortage or a scarcity, the consumer will always stand in danger of exploitation. All that we ask is that, before that power is given to the importer of foreign commodities and to the home producer, the interests of the consumer should be specifically protected by a provision in the Act itself that the Order shall not be issued unless it can be shown that there are adequate supplies of the product for the use of the industrial masses of the country at a price at which it is within their power to purchase.

5.44 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I think that when we talked this matter over upstairs we were told two things—first, that this point was sufficiently safeguarded by the words:
shall…have regard to the interests of the consumers of the product,
and, secondly, that it was dangerous to put in any specific matters to which the Minister was to give his attention, for fear that we might leave out other equally pertinent matters, and so get a wrong balance in the Clause. But regarding, as we all do, this stage of the Bill as one in which we ought to think of the whole effect of the Bill as it leaves the Committee, I observe one thing which makes me feel that these words ought to be in. Later on we get a provision saying specifically that steps can and ought to be taken under these schemes to prevent any over supply of the commodity. When imports of the commodity are rationed, there may be similar rationing of what is to be produced in this country, and persons who produce more than their rationed allowances are subjected to penalties. If you take rather definite steps by penalty to see that there shall be no over supply, it does not seem to me to be wrong to see that there should be no under supply, and that is precisely what the Amendment does. The two things balance. The general wording:
having regard to the interests of the consumers of the product
is very vague. The Minister might say he had regard to their interests, but it is a much more definite thing to say that he has to be satisfied that adequate supplies of the product at reasonable prices can be available simply to balance the other power to prevent over supply.

5.47 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Hon. Members opposite have attributed to me something of which I am quite innocent, though they certainly give me a very good character with my constituents, for which I thank them. There was no collusion with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), but our principle is exactly the opposite from theirs and we are as much entitled to our views as they are to theirs. Our view was that you should not hinder the development of agricultural products and that that ought to be in the scheme. We are very grateful to the Minister for having met that, not in the way we proposed but in general. Further to return good for evil to my hon. Friends, I think that in any proper development scheme what is suggested in their Amendment should be incorporated just as much as the other. Whether this is the right place or whether theirs is the right Amendment I do not know, but I hope it will be incorporated.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: In presenting an earlier Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tried to excite our sympathy on these benches by picturing the Government wrestling with very unusual economic conditions, and he summed it up by saying they were having to deal with what he called the economics of glut. But even during periods of glut there are very large numbers of people who cannot get all that they need. They have to go short of many things, and, as we have been reminded, it is essentially a producers' Bill. Consequently, I feel that these words ought really to be inserted. We know very well what are the Ministry's intentions and, if the situation is not carefully watched, it will not be difficult to create a very real shortage of commodities of various kinds, and in such circumstances you would have rising prices. If masses of the people cannot get all that they need in this situation, where you have an economic glut, bow much worse off will they be if you create an artificial shortage with rising prices? I feel that these words ought to be inserted as a safeguard against further penalisation of people who even now cannot get the things that they need.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I, too, appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment.
I think it is fairly obvious that the purpose of it is one which commends itself to him. I do not suppose there is anyone who will dare to propose to the masses of the people that an artificial shortage should be created. I should like to illustrate the validity of the point embodied in the Amendment by reference to the existing situation with regard to bacon. A voluntary quota has been in operation Since November. Restriction was imposed without, perhaps, the fullest possible regard to existing supplies in this country. Note the effect of this restriction on prices. Bacon prices are very erratic. I have watched them fairly closely in an academic way Since November and have compared them with the corresponding period of previous years. I find no general principle operating. There is very little relation betwen supplies and prices. I have taken a week from last month comparing the quantities that arrived in this country and the wholesale prices as recorded in the lists of the London Provision Exchange with the correlative facts for April, 1932. Imports of bacon have been reduced from 965,000 cwts. for April, 1932, to 760,000 cwts. for April last. In one week of April of this year we received from Denmark 55,253 bales of bacon. In the corresponding week of 1932 the quantity was 66,880 bales. The price of Danish No. 1 sizable last month ranged between 76s. and 80s. a cwt. Last year the prices ranged between 46s. and 56s. In one week of April, 1932, for the 133,000 cwts. of bacon that we got from Denmark, taking a mean price of 51s., we paid roughly £340,000. For the lesser quantity of 110,000 cwts. which we bought for the corresponding week of last month we paid £430,000. That is to say we paid Denmark in one week £90,000 for their being good enough to withhold from our market 23,000 cwts. of bacon.
It may be, as was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, that we have to adapt our economic theories to an age of glut, but, in order to formulate an economic theory for the purpose of regulating glut, it is not necessary to formulate an economic theory for Bedlam. I cannot see that there is any change in our situation which warrants us handing over to Denmark £90,000 in one week for a reduced quota of bacon. We shall probably find that over a period of a year we shall have
handed over to foreign countries millions of pounds in reduced quantities. So much for the Government's concern for the balance of trade. I hope the operations of the marketing scheme will result in a very considerable increase in production in this country, and I hope the supplies will ultimately become adequate and will bring not only a good price for the farmer but a stable price. I would appeal to the Minister to have regard to existing supplies and to have regard to the needs of the consumer before he implements the restriction of imports. There is nothing subversive of the general principle of the marketing scheme in this. As representing an agricultural constituency, I want the case of the farmer to be such as will appeal to the mass of consumers. If you allow consumers to feel that they are being exploited in the interests of one section, there can be no permanence in this or any other scheme to ameliorate the conditions of farming. I think consideration of facts like those that I have quoted would warrant us in pressing the Minister to accept the Amendment.

5.59 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: If anything made it necessary to ask the House to reject the Amendment it would be the argument that the hon. Member has just brought forward. I was almost disposed to accept it when I heard the persuasive arguments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who put the case in general terms, in which I think there is great strength, and my argument in answer to them would have been that which they have already anticipated, that I think it is superfluous, having regard to the very explicit directions in the Clause that, in deciding whether to make an order, the Board of Trade shall have regard to the interest of consumers of the product, and I cannot conceive of anything more germane to the interests of the consumer of the product than to make sure that, as far as possible, adequate supplies at a reasonable price are secured for him. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) began to put those scientific grounds, it was easy to see that, not only was there no point whatever in acceding to the Amendment, but that, in acceding to it. I should do a
very great deal of harm. He began to depart into a criticism of the already existing bacon restrictions, and he alleged that they had been put on without reasonable regard to the interests of the consumer, or to the course of prices, or the adequacy of supply. I hold in my hand the most thorough, scientific, and exhaustive examination of the problem it is possible to bring forward—the Report of the Reorganisation Commission on Pigs and Pig Products. His own argument. There is his own case. Here is the scientific examination which he desires. Here is the restriction of supplies which the Board of Trade is enjoined to carry through. Here is the whole case to which any Minister seeking to escape responsibility could confidently appeal as justifying everything he tried to do.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I was discussing, not the theoretical propositions of the Pig Commission, but the concrete consequences of the policy.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is asking us not to discuss under the Statute the concrete consequences of the policy, but the theoretical anticipations which he is unable to secure. He is asking us to prophesy in the Statute—a most ridiculous thing to do—by suggesting that we must assure ourselves that these supplies shall be available. The administration of these very complicated things is rightly the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member for Carmarthen rightly makes, on grounds of administration, the case he has just been making, but he cannot ask the President to foresee beforehand that, according to him, the carefully-thought-out, scientific calculations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pig and Pig Products have not been borne out in advance. His case is the case we are arguing here. You must secure the interests of the consumers by administrative action. You cannot secure it here by statutory phophecy. That is our function, and all that we do. I shall be willing at another time to argue the case of bacon prices and the results which have taken place. I claim that the case which was reasonably attempted to be made by the hon. Member for Gower, and so sympathetically argued by the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall, is met by the words here.
The very danger which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade foresaw in his rebutting of the arguments for the insertion of the Amendment during the Debate are reinforced by the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, who says that the proper scientific investigation beforehand could take the responsibility off the shoulders of the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think that that could be done. I assure him that the responsibility of the Minister is the safeguarding of the consumer. That which weakens the responsibility of the Minister will weaken the safety of the consumer. The Minister is enjoined in the Statute not to make an Order without having regard to the interests of the consumer. The extra suggestion which is made here to define one, if not all, of those interests, by saying, the adequacy of supplies and the reasonableness of the prices, does not, in fact, add to the security, and leaves out of account altogether such important factors from the point of view of the consumers as the continuity of supply, which might be just as important as adequacy of supply at the moment.
To forecast supply is not possible. To lay upon the shoulders of the President of the Board of Trade the duty of deciding that reasonable supplies shall always be available is to lay upon him an obligation which he cannot carry out. What we can do is to ensure that the interests of the consumer—and in that I fully accept responsibility—and adequate supplies at reasonable prices are protected. Beyond that we cannot go, and in so far as we try to enjoin in advance safeguards upon the President of the Board of Trade, we are, in fact, assuming that the President of the Board of Trade will either be to some extent incompetent or dishonest, and against future incompetency or dishonesty no Statute can protect any body of consumers in this country.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Every Member of the House will pay tribute to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very clever and adroit way in which he manages all the Bills of which he takes charge on behalf of the Government, but
in his arguments to-day I think that he was meeting himself coming back, as it were. The castigation which he gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. E. T. Evans) was really-unjust and undeserved. After this, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the hint from the Scarborough Liberal Conference and come over to this side of the House. If I were a Member supporting a Government of this kind and received such castigations from one of their most prominent Ministers, I should cross the Floor of the House at once. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that were it not for the argument employed by the hon. Gentleman for Carmarthen he would have been disposed to accept the Amendment. Nothing of the kind. He never intended accepting the Amendment. Whatever argument may have been put forward to-day the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was determined that he would not accept the Amendment on any account. Let us see why he does not accept the Amendment. He suggests that the words which we have put in the Amendment are prophetic, and that consequently you cannot put anything which is prophetic into an Act of Parliament. This is what the Government say in their Bill:
The Board of Trade shall…have regard to the interests of consumers of the product to which the order relates.
We claim that the words which we are trying to put into the Bill are far more scientific and less prophetic than the words in the Bill. The Amendment says:
Before making an order under this section the Board of Trade shall be satisfied that adequate supplies of the product at reasonable prices will be available.
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer this question? Is it not the first duty of every Government to secure an adequate supply of food for the people of the country over which they rule? I am astonished at the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not

accepting that policy. Can it be sent forth, therefore, that the National Government will not accept the proposal that it is their duty to see that the people of the nation are properly fed? That is what his reply actually means. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind is in conflict. The Government are getting into a morass over all this business of agriculture. They have quotas and import duties, and on the top of it all there is the Empire Marketing Board. We shall have something to say later on about the work of the Empire Marketing Board in connection with this Measure. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at me. I do not like his looks: I prefer his speech to his looks. I should imagine that it is more easy for the Board of Trade to lay down scientifically that there shall be an adequate supply of the product at a reasonable price, than to say that they will have regard to the interests of the consumer. Let me make a note of the consumer. It does not say "all" consumers. Of course, the consumers which the Government have in mind are all the people outside the Co-operative Movement. I suppose that they will have no regard at all to the consumers within the co-operative commonwealth. I should imagine that there is a word missing there. It ought to be of "all" consumers. If the Government desire to look at this problem, apart from the prophecy mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, they can tell at any time the situation in Covent Garden and in Smithfield Market, Manchester, the two biggest markets in the country, regarding the supplies of any of those products. I fail to understand, therefore, why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman resists such a very reasonable Amendment coming from very reasonable Members on this side of the House.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 250.

Division No. 201.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cove, William G.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Banfield, John William
Daggar, George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Briant, Frank
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Dobbie, William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Cape, Thomas
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Griffith, F, Kingsley (Middiesbro', W).


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Groves. Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Harris, Sir Percy
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thorne, William James


Hicks, Ernest George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, George Henry
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
White, Henry Graham


Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rathbone, Eleanor



Lawson, John James
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leonard, William
Rothschild, James A. de
Mr. D. Graham' and Mr. G.




Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eastwood, John Francis
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton


Albery, Irving James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fuilard
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Aske, Sir Robert William
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Maitland, Adam


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest


Baillle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Balfour, Capt, Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Martin, Thomas B.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Meller, Richard James


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Blindell, James
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Bossom, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Munro, Patrick


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Brown, Col. D. c. (N'th'ld., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Edward T.


Brown.Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales. Harold K.
Nunn, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, Cecil
O"Donovan, Dr. William James


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hanley, Dennis A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Harbord, Arthur
Penny, Sir George


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hartland, George A.
Petherick, M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'varh'pt'n, Bliston)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Potter, John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm, W.)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Weller
Pybus, Percy John


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colville, Lieut, Colonel J.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rankin, Robert


Cook, Thomas A.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ray, Sir William


Cooke, Douglas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ropner. Colonel L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Dickie, John P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Ronald D.


Donner, P. W.
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Doran, Edward
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Eales, John Frederick
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington




Scone, Lord
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Shaw. Captain William T. (Forfar)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Summersby, Charles H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sutcliffe, Harold
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charlees
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smithers, Waldron
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sotheron- Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wise, Alfred R.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Spene, William Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.Westmoriand)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Streuss, Edward A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)
Davies.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I think that there is no one on the Front Bench who will regard this Subsection with any degree of affection. If it means something, then it is highly dangerous. If it means nothing, then it is merely surplusage. It is one of those directory provisions of which the legal profession and the Government have learnt to beware for some considerable time. I would divide the Sub-section into two halves. In the first part it is provided that the President of the Board of Trade shall have regard to the consumer. The second half deals with the question of foreign countries. Why is he not also to have regard to the producer? Why only the consumer? Why cannot he have regard also to transport or revenue? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may keep a most watchful eye on the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, but we are told that the President of the Board of Trade shall have regard to the consumer, and the consumer alone. On that point I suggest that the Sub-section is most dangerous. We all know that the President of the Board of Trade is a reasonable being, and is discharging his functions duly. If he discharges his functions duly, then he must have regard to the consumers. We are telling him in effect that when he makes an Order in regard to bacon he is to think of all the happy homes that are consuming the bacon and the eggs in the morning. Do these words in the Sub-section serve any useful purpose? I believe they were put in to reassure hon. Members on the Opposition benches. If so, they have failed in that object. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) has lately put in an Amendment to insert other
words, and has deprecated these particular words.
The real failure of the Sub-section lies in the second part. There, the President of the Board of Trade is directed to have regard to commercial relations and not to break any treaty. It is a very strange and new provision that we order the President of the Board of Trade to think of commercial relations with other countries. It is the function of the President of the Board of Trade that he shall not break treaties. To put in these words is just as if we inserted into a Bill words providing that the Attorney-General should keep the law, that he should have regard to the laws of the country and not break them. It is presumed that every Minister is. of sufficient capacity that he will not break treaties or laws. When I raised this question in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade defended the words on the. ground that this was not the first time they had appeared in an Act of Parliament. He said that they had appeared in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. Naturally, when I am given a precedent I have proper respect for that precedent, even if it were the hasty legislation of that Coalition Government, not all of whose legislation we now approve. When I look at the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, however, I find that it is entirely a different matter. There you are laying down certain provisions in regard to dumping. You are saying that the Board of Trade shall set up a committee to inquire into any case where goods are being sold below the cost of production and at prices which, by reason of their depreciation in value in regard to currency, are competing unfairly with our goods. Then come the words which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted. It is provided that no Order shall be made on any report from any
committee if there are any similar goods being produced in this country with sufficient economy or efficiency, and also:
if such an order would be in contravention of any treaty or engagement.
That is entirely another matter. It is saying that perhaps the committee has not the resources that lie in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—perhaps the committee recommend restrictions which they ought not to recommend, owing to some engagement that that Government or some previous Government had made. This is directory to the Board of Trade when it looks at the committee's report. But in this Bill this particular Sub-section, for the first time in any Act of Parliament, directs the attention of the Board of Trade to the fact that they must not break treaties. I suggest that it is a most monstrous innovation, and if we allow it as a precedent we shall have passed a most dangerous Sub-section as a precedent for future acts. I would ask the House carefully to consider the words in which this direction is given. It says that they are not to make any Order:
unless they are satified that it is not at variance with any treaty.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether that means that it is not to be in any breach of a treaty, or whether it is hypothecating something that is not so much of a. breach but a slight difference. The words "at variance with" have been widely construed in the Courts and have been held to mean any slight difference whether amounting to a breach or not. If we do not direct the President of the Board of Trade not to commit crime, why should it be stipulated that he shall not break treaties? In regard to the words "not at variance with" there is a special danger. In the last Parliament we discussed the dumping of German oats into this country, and the late Mr. William Graham, considering the question of the German Commercial Treaty of 1924, announced that he could not prohibit German bounty-fed oats coming into the country. I asked the same question in Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that, in his view, you could prohibit the importation of bounty-fed oats under Article 10 of the German Commercial Treaty. With great respect, I would ask him whether it is not possible that the advisers of Mr.
William Graham were right at that time and that the Parliamentary Secretary's present advisers are not right? Article 10 of the Treaty surely provides for the prohibition of particular goods, such as drugs, arms and weapons of war; it is for the purpose of extending the prohibition and restriction on the sale, production and consumption of goods produced in this country to the goods imported from Germany. If we say no oats must be produced here, then we can say Germany must not send any oats here. But we cannot limit our production of oats to a particular quantity and then say Germany must cut down her imports by one-half. That is my view of that particular Section. If that had been the case, then surely it would have been a way out of the difficulty of dumping in 1925. There is a considerable divergence of opinion on the question of dumping. Would restriction of dumping be "at variance with" the treaty, although not a breach of the treaty. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to retain these words "at variance with," but to put in other words.
There is one other phrase which is even more dangerous, and that is that the President of the Board of Trade must not make any order unless he is satisfied
that it is not at variance with any treaty, convention or agreement for the time being in force.
What does that mean? They look innocent words, but when you construe them dangers leap up in every direction. "For the time being" means at the time when the Order is made, not the time when the Order is to operate. Lately we have been forced to put a prohibition on Russian goods to operate on a certain future date, a very necessary provision, and that future date was the date upon which the Trade Agreement with Russia was to expire. If you allow these words to remain, it will not be within the power of the President of the Board of Trade to put any restriction on goods at a future date; it will have to be at the time when a trading agreement has actually expired. That is not going to give the agricultural industry that assurance and confidence which it requires.
Some of us are not satisfied with the terms which British agriculture is to receive under the Argentine Agreement.
We hope that there will be further restrictions on some Argentine imports, but we have to wait for three years while that agreement is operating. No Order can be made in any case until that agreement actually expires. In that case you will get at the end of the agreement, not a further limitation of imports but an actual glut of imports from the Argentine. She will be able to flood this country with any imports she wishes. I ask that the words "for the time being" should be taken out of the Bill. In my view, it is a most dangerous Sub-section and one which at all times has given considerable apprehension to the farmers of this country.

6.36 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
This point was gone into at some length in Committee, and we are still in the dark as to what is the real object of the latter part of the Sub-section. The first part was explained by the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke on the last Amendment, but we have not yet been told how the commercial agreements are going to affect schemes under the Bill. In Committee an hon. Friend of mine asked a pointed question, and he was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but he did not really answer this particular question. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) said
anybody who has anything to do or attempts to induce successive Governments to accept a tax on malting barley knows that the President of the Board of Trade has always said that we cannot do this or that because treaties prevent us.
And he went on to ask:
Will the hon Gentleman tell us whether it will be possible, under existing treaties and arrangements with foreign countries, to limit the importation of butter from any Continental country without, first of all, denouncing the commercial treaty or agreement which exists?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 6th April, 1933; col. 147.]
We want to know what will be the effect of the latter part of this Sub-section on the agreements which have been made. If they are going to hinder schemes on other products which are not under a scheme at present, like barley, or milk, or butter, it will be a great blow to agri-
culture. I cannot find that any answer has been given to this point. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
The importation restriction is upon an agricultural product; the marketing scheme relates to a branch of agriculture. The reasons were fully explained during the earlier discussions on the Amendments. There might well be a product which affected a scheme, as well as a scheme which affected a product.
That sounds all right, but it is not an answer to the question. Later on the Parliamentary Secretary said:
the Board of Trade is to take care, when an Order restricting imports is to be made, to be sure that the contractual obligations entered into by or on behalf of this country are respected. The words are not idle words."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 6th April, 1933; col.155.]
The Board of Trade is to take care before an Order restricting imports is made that the obligations entered into by this country are respected. I should have thought that the Board of Trade would have done that in any case. These are all pious opinions, but they do not tell us how schemes under the Bill are going to be affected by these trade agreements. At the end of his speech the hon. Member said:
The words 'commercial relations' mean the whole external view of trade; in other words, the whole functions of the Board of Trade with regard to the trade and industry of this country. There is no intention of limiting it to one particular line of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 6th April, 1933; col. 162.]
I should have thought that the Board of Trade would have done it in any case. The Import Duties Advisory Committee is supposed to be independent. On various occasions they have held up various products for a long time because agreements were under consideration by the Government. In the case of timber a decision is still held up because there is some agreement in prospect. The same thing has been done in the case of some agricultural products. We want to know how they are going to be affected by this Clause. If it can be used to hinder the preparation of schemes, then some products may never come into a scheme at all.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: When I first read this proposal I thought, what a remarkable Amendment! I suggest that
there is something more behind it than a mere legal argument. What does the Sub-section do? It suggests that the President of the Board of Trade must have regard to three things—first, the interests of the consumers. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) says, why should consumers be considered under an agricultural marketing scheme.

Mr. TURTON: I never said that. I said why should not the President of the Board of Trade consider all interests.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Why should he not have special regard to the interests of consumers?

Mr. TURTON: By putting one thing in, by the law of England, you exclude others.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: But you make certain that one thing will be done. The hon. Member suggested that this Subsection is highly dangerous. Highly dangerous to whom? It is absolutely essential that the interests of consumers should be considered. But there is something else with which I am equally concerned. The Sub-section says that the President of the Board of Trade shall have regard to persons who purchase a product
for the purpose of subjecting it to any treatment or process of manufacture.
I pointed out in Committee that the whole textile industry can be affected by this Bill. Certain things can be laid down which would restrict the import of any kind, grade or variety or description of any particular kind of wool which comes into this country. It is vital that there should be a provision that the Board of Trade, the Department which looks after the interests of industry, should be told particularly that questions of processing shall be given special regard. With regard to the treaties in existence between this country and other countries, surely the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does not object to England keeping her treaties?

Mr. TURTON: I expect the President of the Board of Trade to keep treaties.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Why object to his being told about it? It may not be necessary, but I can see no possible harm in it. I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment. It is the only Sub-
section in the Bill which gives particular regard to the interests of consumers in primary and secondary products.

6.44 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I had every intention of resisting the Amendment, but the appeal of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) gave me a moment's hesitation. An alliance with such a quarter is indeed suspect, and I have had to think again while on my feet. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) should have any cause to feel that I did not fully respond to any questions which have been put to me, and I assure him that it was entirely by inadvertence if that were the case. I have now an opportunity of making good that omission by replying expressly to the question, and at the end of my speech I propose to say, "Are there any other questions the hon. Member desires to put before I resume my seat?"
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) would be one of the first to be convInced by a sound legal argument in reply. I pay him that compliment at once. He says, "Either these words mean nothing, in which case they are surplusage, or if they mean something they are dangerous." He put that spiked dilemma to me and asked me to hook myself on to one or other of the points. I propose to ask the hon. Member to consider just what the Board of Trade has to do with agriculture here. If the hon. Member will consider other Amendments which have been moved, he will realise that there was great pressure brought to bear on the Government to accept the suggestion that an Order should never be made to restrict the imports of a commodity from abroad except at the suggestion of the Market Supply Committee. What is the line of procedure to be followed? The Market Supply Committee, knowing all that is going on in connection with any particular commodity, will approach the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture will then approach the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will have, so to speak, to sit in judgment upon the application made by the Minister of Agriculture at the request of the Market Supply Committee, that an Order should be made restricting some particular importation. The Board of Trade will call for evidence in support
of the application, and the evidence will be that, unless an Order is made, the reorganisation of that branch of the industry cannot be fully effected.
If we stopped there and had none of this Sub-section (3) in the Bill at all, the Government's advisers say that it might be contended that the Board of Trade would not be able to take into consideration any question other than whether the Order was necessary for the effective reorganisation of the branch of industry. In other words, we might be restricted to finding out whether the Order was essential for the main purposes for which it is intended to be brought in. This Sub-section, so far from being meaningless or dangerous, is an enabling Sub-section, permitting the Board of Trade not to be limited to seeing whether the Order is essential to the reorganisation of the branch of the industry, but in doing so to take into regard other considerations, including particularly the interests of the consumers. The interests of the consumers include not merely something which someone has to eat raw or cooked, but yarn or some of the other wonderful products of Yorkshire or Lancashire which someone has to make.
Now I come to the second part of the Sub-section, which deals with commercial treaties. Again, dealing with the matter broadly, it was suggested that the making of this Order should be the concern of the Ministry of Agriculture. Quite a lot of arguments were adduced in Committee that the one to make the Order should be the Minister of Agriculture. We had to point out that it was a question not merely of the agricultural markets in any particular commodity, but a question of the commercial relations of the United Kingdom with other countries, and that that matter comes under the Board of Trade. So the Board of Trade has to be brought into account because it has to deal with commercial treaties. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, "But surely the President of the Board of Trade may be entrusted with not breaking the law. If you want to tell him that he must not break the law, do not tell him that he must not act at variance with good conduct, but tell him, 'Thou shalt not'." I am authorised to define the words "not at variance." They mean "not in conflict with."
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton founded his argument very largely on the German Treaty of 1924. I gave an asurance during Committee that I would again look up the whole question of that Treaty, and when I saw the hon. Member come into the House to-day with a large portion of the Library in his arms, I had every assurance that my work of preparation would not have gone in vain. I would like to read to him what, for the purpose of better accuracy, I have committed to writing. This is the assurance that I am instructed to give with regard to the interpretation of the Anglo-German Treaty. I am reading it exactly as it is given to me.
The hon. and learned Member for Thirsk and Malton is quite wrong. He is thinking that Article 10 (e) is confined to things Tike drugs, as suggested by him in Committee. Contrary to his belief, Article 10 (e) of the German Treaty means exactly what it says. There can be no doubt that if restrictions are imposed upon the production, sale, consumption or forwarding within the United Kingdom, then restrictions can be imposed on the import of goods of the same kind whatever their nature.
Whether that is in disagreement with the advice tendered to the late Mr. William Graham or not is a matter of academic interest on which I cannot express any views, but I can give, with the full weight of the Government advisers behind me, the assurance that the Anglo-German Treaty does permit us to restrict the "import of goods of the same kind, whatever their nature," and there is nothing in Article 10 or any part of the Treaty which in any way reduces that power.
I think I have dealt with the Treaty. I now have to deal with the words, "for the time being." I noticed that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, when he read the Safeguarding of Industries Act, did not read those few words. But I reminded him in Committee that those words are taken literally from the 1921 Act, and that they have caused not the slightest difficulty. Obviously the time when the President of the Board of Trade has to consider this matter is when the suggestion is made that he should make an Order. He has then to be satisfied that he can make that Order without it being in conflict with anything that the Government has undertaken in any Treaty down to that moment. The President of the Board of Trade makes his Order. The hon. Member asks,
"What is going to happen if in three years we make another Treaty?" The Order made three years before you make a Treaty will not be in conflict with the Treaty.

Mr. TURTON: If we imagine that a similar state of affairs were to exist as existed in April we can see that His Majesty's Government would have been precluded from putting any restriction on Russian goods because of the peculiar words in this Bill.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member is asking me to say what are the restrictions in the Treaties at present in force, of course I can do so, but it is a long list. The point is that obviously we cannot make an Order that conflicts with a treaty. The only treaty to be looked at is the treaty in force when you make an Order.

Mr. TURTON: Under this Bill you cannot make any Order until a treaty has actually expired.

Dr. BURGIN: I disagree emphatically. I say that if you had to make an Order that was not at variance with a treaty for the time being in force, and you knew that that treaty was to come to an end within a month, you could quite easily make an Order restricting as from six weeks ahead.

Mr. TURTON: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that that question was considered in the High Court a short time ago on a question of assessment "for the time being."' The Court there construed the phrase in the actual words I have used, and at variance with and in conflict with the words that the Parliamentary Secretary has used.

Dr. BURGIN: We are saying here that the Board of Trade shall not make an Order unless satisfied that it does not conflict. I have a junior part to play in the administration of the Board of Trade, but I should have no hesitation whatever in directing the making of an Order, provided I was satisfied that it did not conflict with a treaty. If there is anything in the hon. Member's point about the treaty about to expire one can look at it again. I am not satisfied that there is anything in it at all. I think the words have a plain meaning. The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-
General Brown) asks, "How does this type of Clause affect our schemes, for instance, in regard to malting barley, butter and other commodities? The Clause does not in any way limit or restrict or expand the difficulties when dealing with any of these commodities. If there is any treaty to which this country is a party, a treaty which deals with malting barley, or butter or anything else, there is nothing in Sub-section (3) which increases the difficulty of dealing with it. All that the Clause says is that the President of the Board of Trade in making an Order shall not be limited to any narrow construction of Sub-section 1 (a) or Sub-section 1 (b); he shall not be limited merely to considering the agricultural scheme or the agricultural industry, but shall have regard to consumers, and shall bear in mind the obligations of this country in treaties and trade agreements with other countries, and shall not do anything that conflicts. For these reasons I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2,—(Regulation of sales of home-produced agricultural products.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out from the word "section" to the end of line 8.
I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that were used in Committee on this Amendment. Two trade agreements have been discussed by the House, and have both been accepted, and other agreements are in the offing. Is it a series of such agreements that the Government have in mind? I am particularly concerned about discriminating against some particular Government. Cannot we have it from the right hon. Gentleman fiNaily and definitely that, whatever agreements the Government enter into, there will be no discrimination against any particular Government? If we have that assurance I shall not press the Amendment.

7.1 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for dealing with the question with such brevity. His speeches in Committee have shown that he has this subject much at heart. I do not think the House has any doubt as to the point which under-
lies this Amendment. It is: Are you going to confine the arrangements on which orders are made to arrangements made under treaty, or is any other form of arrangement to be the basis of an order, such as certain voluntary arrangements made in the recent past? The hon. Gentleman asked definitely whether there will be any discrimination against any Government, and whether that is the underlying motive of the Sub-section. The answer is most certainly, no. There is no desire to discriminate against any Government. As the number of Governments with whom we have quota arrangements increases it may be that the need for the Sub-section decreases, but it is necessary to have it here in the Bill in order that, if a situation should reappear, and it is more convenient temporarily to make a voluntary arrangement, we shall not be prevented from taking the necessary steps to have a restrictive order based upon it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.3 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "in respect of the said product."
This Amendment is introductory to a series of three Amendments which introduce the phrase "related product." A product on importation, which is regulated, may not be in the same form as that in which it is regulated at home. At home it may be desirable to regulate fat stock, whereas the imported product may be beef. This Amendment is designed to meet cases such as these. It is more a drafting Amendment than a matter of principle.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 15, after the word "reorganisation," insert the words "or organised development."

In line 19, leave out the words "by order regulate sales of that product," and insert instead thereof the words:
make an order regulating sales of the said agricultural product or any related product.

In line 24, leave out the words "kinds, varieties, or grades," and insert the word "descriptions."

In line 26, leave out the words "or of any kind, variety, or grade," and insert instead thereof the words:
or related product, as the case may be, or of any description.

In line 30, at the end, insert the words:
In this Sub-section the expression 'related product' means, in relation to an agricultural product, any agricultural product from which the first-mentioned agricultural product is wholly or partly manufactured or derived, or any agricultural product wholly or partly manufactured or derived therefrom."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Market Supply Committee.)

7.7 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words:
and the conditions of employment and standard of life of those engaged in the production of such products.
We consider that the time has now come in the reorganisation of agriculture, when giving protection to the agricultural industry, to insert a provision that the benefits of the Bill shall be extended to the man who works on the land. It may be said that the general history of agriculture in this country, however far we may go back, does undoubtedly suggest that, even when British agriculture was in a prosperous condition, the interest of the British agricultural labourer, who, when all is said and done, is the most important person in relation to the products of agriculture, never was seen to, as far as wages and conditions are concerned. Surely, when the National Government are going to reorganise this industry, one of the first conditions which ought to attach to that reorganisation is that the man who works the land should have his conditions reviewed. At the same time as the Marketing Committee is giving Protection to the producer, a term which includes both landlord and farmer, the farm labourer should get some benefit out of this Protection.
The Amendment we seek to include in this Bill is a just one. Is there any hon. Member in this House who can give any justifiable reason why, when asking for protection, as this industry is doing, and seeking to lay a definite embargo on imports, as well as giving it a general monopoly of supply in the markets and fixation of prices, there is no room for
consideration of the man who works on the land? The Government are largely made up of men who come from the agricultural districts. They have promised the agricultural labourer that he will get full consideration in any Bill for the organisation of this industry. Is it too much that the agricultural labourer should be given a fair crack of the whip, and fair consideration when the Marketing Board is considering imports and fixation of prices? No reorganisation would be sufficient in this industry, or any other, which did not give first place to the man who does the work of the industry, and who, putting first things first, is the most important person in the industry.
A National Government should consider in all their legislation impartially all classes of society. Here we find protection for the landlord and protection for the farmer, but as to the unfortunate man employed on the land, not a word is said regarding what conditions he shall have guaranteed from this wholesale protection and benefit to the landlord and farmer. One would consider that it would have been a first fundamental to the National Government that, in any reorganisation of this industry, importance should be given to the tiller of the soil. He should have fair conditions of wages and hours. It is no use for whoever replies to suggest that provision has already been made for his protection. It has not. What legislation there is on the. Statute Book at this moment for the protection of the agricultural labourer is being fiercely violated, and has never operated. The people asking for this protection have been the biggest opponents we have had against the man who tills and works from morn till night organising himself with a view to battling for his own rights. Here is an opportunity for the National Government to show for once in a while—and they have not done it yet—that they are anxious to legislate for all classes of society.
If it is fair to give the landlord and farmer protection, why is it not fair to give it to the agricultural labourer and the consumer? If we pass legislation on purely nationalist lines, then we ought to give protection to all sections of the community, and not one section. The agricultural labourer is one of the most deserving men in industry. He is the
man who toils and does the work. But even at this stage of our civilisation we have no Government prepared to admit that man to the place he should take in a Bill of this description. I hope the Minister will give this his serious consideration, and let the country know if he intends to be fair and just and give protection to all classes of society. If the Government do that, these agricultural labourers are the people they will put in the first place, and not in the last.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not expect the Minister to give it his consideration, for I expect nothing from this Government, and I think time will prove that I shall not be disappointed, particularly with regard to the agricultural worker. As the hon. Member has said, landlords, farmers, and vested interests generally, get protection, but to the farm labourer little sympathy is shown. This Amendment says that the Market Supply Committee shall not be limited to reviewing supplies of agricultural products in the United Kingdom, but that they shall, in addition to that review, generally report to the Minister on
the conditions of employment and standard of life of those engaged in the production of such products.
Surely we have a right to ask the Minister at least to permit the Market Supply Committee to make some recommendations to him as to how things are going, generally, from the labourers' point of view in the various areas affected. We may not get what we want, of course, but we think we have the right to ask for it.

7.16 p.m.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: As an agricultural Member I wish to assure the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment that agriculturists throughout the country have a very Sincere sympathy with the conditions of agricultural employés and there is a personal contact between the agriculturist and his men that does not, I believe, exist in any other industry. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) said both the farmer and the landlord were getting protection under this Bill, but that there was no protection for the agricultural
worker. I respectfully suggest to him that the agricultural worker has had his protection already in the Agricultural Wages Boards, but in the past there was no protection for the farmer to enable him to pay the wages. This Bill will give the farmer the protection in selling his products which will enable him to pay, as he desires to pay, a proper and reasonable wage to the agricultural worker.

7.17 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) do rather less than justice even to the work of a previous Labour Government and certainly to the work of all Governments Since in maintaining and extending the work of the Agricultural Wages Board. There are very few classes of workers in the country who have statutory protection for their wages and when we find that, although the products out of which wages are paid have fallen Since 1924 from 161 to 112, whereas agricultural wages which were 156 in 1924 have moved to 173, it shows that the desire which has been very properly expressed, in connection with this movement for re-establishing the solvency of agriculture, that the worker should have "a fair crack of the whip"—to use the expression of the Mover of the Amendment—is very fully shared by the community as a whole and by successive Parliaments and successive Governments—not any one particular Government. It is, in fact, because of the movement of agricultural wages that it is necessary, unless the standard of living of the agricultural worker is to be reduced, that some Measure such as this should be introduced.
I believe that the remarkable change of opinion which has come over the whole community with regard to the farm, with regard to the industry of agriculture, and the willingness of the towns to contemplate a rise in prices, are largely due to the fact that we began this alteration of conditions by dealing with the condition of the farm-workers. It has not been an easy matter either from the Ministry's or from the agriculturists' point of view. As my hon. Friends opposite know, at this very moment there is in Norfolk a most
unfortunate dispute, but one in which neither the Ministry nor the National Farmers' Union have shirked their responsibilities. The wages committee in spite of resignations is functioning, and has just issued an award, and that award has statutory effect. I ask hon. Members whether, under these conditions, they cannot see their way to withdraw the Amendment? It would be serious were it to go forward to the agricultural community that, after all that has been done, not, as I say, by any one Parliament but by several, not by any one Government but by many, it was thought that the system was not efficacious. To throw doubt upon the efficacy of such a reform as that is the first step to sweeping it away, and none of us, I am sure, would wish that to happen.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I am astonished that the Minister has not found it possible to accept this Amendment which merely imposes on the Market Supply Committee the obligation to have regard, among a number of other things, to the conditions of the labourers. It imposes upon the Ministry and upon the committee no additional statutory obligation other than that. If these words were included they would, I gather, permit the agricultural workers to make representations to the Market Supply Committee with regard to the conditions of labour, in exactly the same way as the farmers can make representations to the committee with regard to prices. The Amendment seems to be most reasonable. Surely it is admitted that when considering the efficiency or otherwise of an industry we cannot ignore, in connection with that test, the consideration of whether the people engaged in the industry are having a square deal or not. The view advanced by the Minister will give rise to considerable apprehension in the country. It is true that agriculture is one of the few instances in which the State has entered into an important industry with a view to the regulation of its products. It is the beginning of that State planning of which we have heard so much. But is it not extremely unfortunate, now that the Government are launching the first of these schemes, that they should not. in the Act of Parliament make any provision at all for giving consideration to the conditions
of the workers in the industry which is being planned.

Major ELLIOT: Because it has been dealt with in another Statute.

Mr. BEVAN: But this Market Supply Committee is to be armed with considerable powers. It will be possible for them to say to these people, "We are going to do this for you only on condition that you give a quid pro quo and do certain other things as well."

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is confusing this committee with the Import Duties Advisory Committee. This committee has no executive powers such as he suggests. It merely has the power to inform the Minister. The Minister is already informed as to the operations of agricultural wages through another statutory channel of information and does not require this further channel of information.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that protests have been made in this House time and time again that the Agricultural Wages Board machinery is being sabotaged in many parts of the country. Protests have been made in the House that the inspectorate has been reduced by the Government of which he is a Member, and that there is no proper inspection of the wages which are now being paid. It is not good enough for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to presume that the Agricultural Wages Board machinery is working with 100 per cent. efficiency in the country and that all that is necessary is to leave the protection of the workers where it is at the moment with the Agricultural Wages Board. The words which we asked him to insert give the Market Supply Committee power, in making representations to the Board of Trade—

Major ELLIOT: But they do not make representations to the President of the Board of Trade. I have no doubt it was a slip on the part of the hon. Member, but they only make representations to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. BEVAN: That is of course a slip, but we have just been told by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland how representations would be passed from the Ministry of Agriculture to the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the limitation of the imports of certain pro-
ducts, the production of which it is proposed to organise under the Bill. The point which we are striving to put is this. The landlord's interest is being protected, because the object of the Bill is to increase the revenue from their land. The farmer's interest is being protected, because his interest is related also to the price of the product, and all we are seeking to establish is that regard should be paid in the organisation of these schemes to the protection of the market for the agricultural workers' labour. It is of paramount importance that that should be done in this Bill. The Minister in effect, is proposing to organise a scarcity of agricultural products. His principal purpose is to bring about an artificial scarcity ill order to raise prices. At the same time as the Minister creates a condition of scarcity in agricultural products he creates a condition of plenitude in regard to agricultural labour. A scarcity of agricultural products necessarily means a surplus of agricultural labour. The Minister cannot have it both ways.

Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend cannot have heard the Debate on the earlier part of this Bill in which we spoke of the necessity of an expanding share of the home market. It may create a plenitude of agricultural labour in the world all over but the purpose is to create increased opportunities for the agricultural labourer here at home, and I can have it both ways, and I am having it both ways, as the figures show. The thing is working just now. It is actually in operation. I beg of my hon. Friend to consider before he continues this line of argument whether he attaches any validity to the Agricultural Wages Act at all or not. Otherwise we find ourselves here debating, not the functions of the Market Supply Committee, but the functions of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. BEVAN: I find from reports which I have received from various parts of the country that the Agricultural Wages Board machinery in many parts is being sabotaged and that is why I wish to give the Government additional powers. Why does the Minister object to this augmentation of powers? If it is found on inquiry by the Market Supply Committee that such powers are not necessary, if a report is received that in one part of
the country where a particular scheme is about to be set up, the agricultural wages machinery is operating satisfactorily, then "everything in the garden will be lovely" and it will be possible to go on with the scheme for that area. But if it is reported through representations to the Market Supply Committee that in another area wages are not adequately protected, surely no harm can be done by having those representations made to the Market Supply Committee and passed on by them to the Ministry or to the appropriate Department for seeing that the Act is carried out properly. I would like the Minister to tell the House in what way will the inclusion of these words add to his embarrassment?

Major ELLIOT: In a word, by the very procedure which the hon. Member has sketched out to the House, namely, to set up under this Measure, independent machinery to review the working of another Act. He suggests that this work should be carried out by two different organisations both responsible to tine same Minister. That would of course create widespread confusion. My position in relation to the Agricultural Wages Act is that of a judge and an elaborate system of statutory procedure has been worked out, by the hon. Member's own party as well as by ours, for ensuring that complaints shall go to the Minister and shall be considered by him in that way. To suggest that we should spatchcock another body into this system, a body which has nothing to do with the working of the Act, which has no administrative contact with the working of the Act, which has not attached to it any inspectorate whatever, and to suggest that a series of roving commissions like that would not add to my embarrassment —all that I can say is that I would ask my hon. Friend to put himself in my place and see what he would say then.

Mr. BEVAN: I would be very glad to be in the position occupied by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He exaggerates when he says that we should be giving to this Market Supply Committee a roving commission to inquire into all sorts of things. All that we are suggesting is that, when a scheme is about to be set up, representations shall be made, if people wish to make them. If the agricultural labourers in that area wish
to say, "This scheme ought not to be set up because these farmers are already unjustly treating us," surely that is a reasonable proposition. There is no need to have a duplication of inspectors. All that you need do, if you are Sincere about protecting the agricultural labourer, is to increase the number of inspectors and see that they do their job properly. We on this side have had far more experience than has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the way in which this sort of legislation is sidetracked. We know of instances where indeed in many parts of the country landlords or employers force their employés to enter into conspiracies with them to thwart the intentions of the law, and the poor labourer finds himself in a hopeless position, because he either has to agree with the employer to accept a wage far below the legal standard, or put up with dismissal.
Hon. Members must not imagine that the job is finished when an Act has gone through. The employer is in a privileged position and is always able to impose conditions upon his employés, who in very many instances are unable to secure the protection of the law. I have seen in many instances false wages paid to employés, when investigation would have shown that they were 12s. or 15s. under the contract wages. So it is not true to say that adequate protection is given to a labourer merely by means of the wage-protecting machinery which exists at the moment. We are seeking by this Amendment to provide an augmentation of the protection of the agricultural labourer that at present exists. It is not good enough to say that we shall have roving commissions or duplicate inspectorates if the Amendment is passed. All that we desire to do is to put a new weapon in the hands of the agricultural labourer, to secure that if he cannot get proper protection for his labour, the farmer shall not have protection for his products.
If there is anything at all in the agricultural planning scheme, if the Government are Sincere in their intention that this shall lead to a revival of the countryside, they will secure in every way that the wages of the agricultural labourer shall be augmented and protected, because he spends his money in the village, and the landlord generally spends his money in the city, so that from the point of view of rural revival, it is more im-
portant that the agricultural labourer should have more money than that the landlord should. You should try to get the money spent in the village, and it is spent there if it is in the hands of the labourer, who cannot leave the village.
We want a tribunal where he can argue his case. I am surprised at the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that innocent words of this description, which merely secure that in one place in the Bill the agricultural labourer shall have a voice and make his protest effective, will upset the symmetry of the Bill. Let him have more regard for the symmetry of the countryside and less regard for the symmetry of the Bill, and probably he will get a more prosperous agriculture. In resisting the Amendment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not doing himself any good in the country, because, if he intends to go on with these planning schemes, if he thinks, as I do not agree, that the various interests in agriculture can be reconciled and worked into a scheme for the whole industry, let him allow all the interests to appear in the Bill, and not leave out the agricultural labourer.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that his wages Department at the Ministry of Agriculture is more or less a recording angel, and nothing more. It simply receives wage reports, it employs eight or nine inspectors to insist on the law being carried out, and, as far as the Ministry is concerned, that is the beginning and the end of its problem with regard to wages. We regard this Market Supply Committee as of vital importance. They not only have to review generally the circumstances affecting the supply of agricultural products in the United Kingdom, but they have to give advice to the Minister of Agriculture, and they have periodically to make recommendations to the Minister as to the effect of the application of an Order under Part I and as to what further Orders ought to be applied to any particular products. If that reorganisation or efficient organisation for which the Minister hopes is to come to pass, we shall have various changes in

the industry. We shall have transfers from an uneconomic area to an economic area, and we shall have combinations of producers of primary as well as of secondary products; and if the results are to be worth while, they ought to find expression in the wages of the agricultural workers.

Surely it is not too much to ask, when Orders under Part I are applied, if prices commence to increase and some element of prosperity is restored to agriculture, that somebody should be definitely charged with responsibility for the agricultural labourer. I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will deny that he has no responsibility for the worker. His only responsibility is to record the wages that are settled by a wages committee, and to see that the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act of 1924 is carried out by means of the employment of his inspectors. If in any county a wages committee disagrees and a case finds its way back to the National Wages Committee, who have no power in the matter, that is as far as the Minister can go.

It seems to me, because of the obvious changes that this Bill will make in almost every area, if the farmers are to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them, that changes will take place in the wages and working conditions of the labourers, and we ask that this Market Supply Committee, this committee of five wise men who are going to advise agriculturists how, with import restrictions, they can make the best use of the 6oil of this country, should not exclude the labourers from its consideration. We think it is a very modest Amendment, which even Conservative agricultural representatives might accept. However, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has objected to it, we have no alternative to taking it to a Division, though we would very much have preferred at least one manifestation of Governmental sympathy for the agricultural worker.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 220.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cocke, Frederick Seymour


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cape, Thomas
Daggar, George


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dobble, William
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Thome, William James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Gcvan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major Goronwy



Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


John, William
Price, Gabriel
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Golf, Sir Park
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goldie, Noel B.
North, Edward T.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William


Albery, Irving James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pearson, William G.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Potter, John


Balfour, George (Hampetead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hales, Harold K.
Pybus, Percy John


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Rankin, Robert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hanbury, Cecil
Ray, Sir William


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Harbord, Arthur
Held, David D. (County Down)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Hartland, George A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Blindell, James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Briant, Frank
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Robinson, John Roland


Brocklebank,' C. E. R.
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Burghley, Lord
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rothschild, James A. de


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Janner, Barnett
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scone, Lord


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leech. Dr. J. W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, Oswald
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dickie, John P.
Mabane, William
Sot heron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dormer, P. W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetiaw)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J


Drewe, Cedric
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spens, William Patrick


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dunglass, Lord
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stones, James


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, Adam
Storey, Samuel


Elmley, Viscount
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Strauss, Edward A.




Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, Richard James
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Toucne, Gordon Cosmo


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Munro. Patrick
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wells. Sydney Richard


Gluckstein. Louis Halle
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Whyte, Jardine Bell




Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Wills, Wilfrid D.
Womersley, Walter James



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wise, Alfred R.
Wragg, Herbert
Sir Victor War render and Lieut.




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out the word "regulating," and to insert instead thereof the words,
planning the agricultural industry in relation to.
Hon. Members will find that the following words occur in Sub-section (2):
It shall be the duty of the Market Supply Committee to review generally the circumstances affecting the supply of agricultural products in the United Kingdom and to make recommendations to the said Minister and Secretaries of State as to any steps which ought, in the opinion of the committee, to be taken for regulating that supply.
It is hardly worth while having a Bill of this kind to achieve the object which the Minister and the Government seem to have in view. We want to go very much deeper by inserting these words, and to say that it is very little use appointing a committee of this kind merely to regulate the products that come into the markets of the country. The situation of the countryside at the moment shows that the policy of the Government for some unknown reason does not Colncide with what they are trying to do in this Measure. Let one give an example of what I mean. As I came from Manchester to-day I passed through about 150 miles from Derby to London. I am assured by those who understand the qualities of the soil and who know something about agriculture that in that 150 miles there is probably the finest soil in the whole of Europe. I guarantee that as far as I could see from the train there were not more than 20 persons employed over the whole of that area. In France, Italy or any other Continental country there would be at least ten or a dozen times as many persons employed on the soil per acre as there are in this country. There is nothing in this Bill which will affect that fundamental problem of employing more men to produce more from the soil, and we are very anxious that the Minister of Agriculture should take heed of something more than merely marketing the products of agriculture.
The Government in appointing the Market Supply Committee ought to give
it authority to inform the appropriate Minister whether vested interests, on either the landlords' or the farmers' side, are preventing the development of agriculture. There is very little in the Bill to deal with the agricultural industry as such. It relates almost exclusively to the marketing of the products of that industry. We want to know, therefore, whether the Minister cannot insert these words so that the Government should sit down and plan the industry for a few years to come Let me give an example. In the County of Shropshire tons of apples are left almost any year to rot on the ground. At the same time the Corporation of Manchester possesses a huge cold storage scheme to house apples from Australia and Canada. Would it not be better to lay down cold storage in Shropshire where the apples are grown so that they can be kept until they can be sold? I want to ask the Minister what relationship there is between the appointment of this Market Supply Committee and the work of the Empire Marketing Board. The Empire Marketing Board encourages with all its power, and with the expenditure of State money, too, the bringing into this country of some commodities that can be produced within our own shores. Some Members of the Government are so imperialistic that they forget that Great Britain is part of the British Empire. We want to develop some relationship between the amount of the commodities that can be produced in this country and the volume that comes from our own Dominions.
I promised to give no more than a general outline of the proposal embodied in the Amendment. I am afraid that I have done it inadequately, but I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture will not deal with me in the same fierce way as he-dealt with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), who delivered such a brilliant speech and made such a good point that the Minister attacked him almost ferociously. I am sure that I have not made such a good case as to warrant such a violent attack in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply to me.
Every Member in the House, I am sure, is distressed to see our countryside in such a predicament. I should imagine that if the Government had the power and cared to wield it, at least one-half of our unemployment problem would be solved in a very short time by producing within our own shores the commodities which it is possible to grow here. There are of course differences in the methods as to how that should be done. Some Members think that quotas will do it and others that Import Duties will achieve the object. We, on the other hand, feel that there is one thing that has to be done in planning our agricultural industry—the shackles of private enterprise and the ownership of large tracts of territory in the hands of the few must be done away with once and for all.

7.55 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) in his aspirations. The trouble about him and his colleagues is that they do not understand even their own Bills and Acts of Parliament. The Labour party two years ago passed a Measure called the Agricultural Marketing Act, and that provided for the establishment of a reorganisation commission which would do precisely the work which my hon. Friend is trying to foist now on to a committee appointed for a totally different purpose. If they would only consider what has actually been done under their own Act of Parliament they would find no cause for duplicating the machinery which already exists, as they are trying to do in this Amendment, and as they tried to do in the last. The work of planning agriculture is now going on under the energetic leadership of my right hon. and gallant Friend under the Act that was passed two years ago. To introduce that question here is simple supererogation. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend in his eloquent peroration about the 150 miles of the best land in the world which employs only 20 men and his comparison with the conditions in France. I will say only two things to him. I would ask him first to go to France and try to induce the French people with the higher ratio of employment on their agricultural land
that they would do better by the nationalisation of the land than by Protection. I should like to know what the French would say to him. Secondly, I would advise him to buy a farm situated on that 150 miles, and try to farm it himself.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We may have forgotten many things that the Labour Government did, but I do not think that it falls to the Noble Lord to tell us that the present Minister of Agriculture is planning the agricultural industry as we would have it planned. Some of my colleagues and I come from areas which are badly depressed. We are concerned as to what is to happen to the enormous aggregation of people situated in the mining valleys of South Wales and elsewhere. We wonder whether it is possible for this Government, with its enormous power, to remove the men from what are now recognised to be uneconomic areas, Capttalistically, to some other areas or industries where they would be able to earn a living instead of being dependent upon unemployment benefit or public assistance.
In moving this Amendment we are trying to get the Government, through the Minister of Agriculture—who is to me the most progressive of Ministers of the State, and seems to possess an outlook and a philosophy far more progressive than we usually get from the Front Bench opposite—to consider whether it is possible to agree that this Market Supply Committee shall not only have power to regulate things but have power to plan things. Could it not be within the competency of the Committee to deal with imports on a large scale; to purchase commodities in bulk and see that those commodities were distributed at a fair price to the consumers at large; to see that landlords—I do not wish to infer that the Noble Lord was considering his own peculiar interest—do not charge an exhorbitant price for land? We have some knowledge of what landlords do when land is wanted for special purposes, though I am sure the Chair would not permit me to dilate on what has been happening in Glamorgan and other parts of the country where fabulous prices have been charged by landlords, and nothing has been said about it though
reference has frequently been made to the enormous cost of road construction.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): This Amendment relates solely to the agricultural industry, and the cost of roads cannot arise under it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that point—only roads may have to be constructed for agricultural purposes. I thought it might be out of order, and that is really why I put the observation in parenthesis. We hope the Minister will appreciate what it is we are driving at. We are anxious that this Committee, which is to make certain recommendations after reviewing things in this country and, for that matter, in other countries, shall if possible have some kind of executive authority, some power which will enable them to take within their ambit the whole of the agricultural industry considered over a period of years. We think they should ascertain exactly the quantum of goods which can be produced per acre, and ascertain how much is required from other countries to supplement it. By such means it might be possible to bring about a general revival in the agricultural industry. They might ascertain, also, how to cheapen the cost of production, and altogether try to make us less dependent upon the outside the word. We want to revive our badly-depresesd areas and give some hope to the millions of unemployed.

8.5 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure no one on this side of the House will complain of the tone of the speeches nor, indeed, of the desires expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), As these Debates go on we see a remarkable harmony of purpose in all parts of the House regarding the general desire which we have, and my only fear is that my hon. Friends opposite may, in their zeal, altogether outrun discretion, and desire completely to ban foreign imports of any kind. Indeed, that was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who envisaged half the unemployed being put on to producing food and making us completely independent of all imported supplies, though that might, as we are so often told by them, have the corresponding effect of throwing out of work an
equivalent number of men who are now manufacturing goods to pay for this imported food. If we are to secure acceptance of our general conditions, nobody will be more pleased than myself, but at the moment we are in the embryo stages of these new developments, and, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said in his very thoughtful remarks, it is not so much the question of this actual Amendment as of the purpose which we have before us.
We do appreciate the necessity for planning, but I would ask them to consider the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who pointed out that, product by product, that was now in progress, and that to load the whole of the plan upon one committee of five persons would probably hopelessly ovEriead that committee. That committee has the very important function of a man watching a pressure gauge—it will be watching its rise or its fall, because there is a danger that, quite suddenly, scarcity may appear in the world. Then the economies of the present situation would cease to operate, and we should have to change over as quickly as possible to producing an extra quantity of some commodity the supplies of which have suddenly left us. This committee will have the very important function of supervising schemes which combine all these operations. To ask them also to plan, to lay out the works, would be like detaching the man watching the pressure gauge from his immediate performance and giving him a more long-range performance which would be more properly carried out by other functionaries in the works. We have the reorganisation commission report, a planning report, upon pigs, we have the reorganisation commission report, a planning report, upon milk, we have the planning committee for fat stock and fat stock marketing. All these are reviewing not merely the immediate problems but the very long-range problems of which the hon. Member for Ogmore spoke.
I ask the House to beware of ovErieading any particular piece of this machinery with functions to which it is not adapted. This committee will be a planning committee, but its guide to planning will be the head of steam, the pressure of supply which it sees before it on the gauges, that is according to the reports given out daily by the markets of this country
and the statistical information in the hands of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend desires inquiries into the maximum output per acre, what supplies may be expected from abroad, and what we could do without if we planned all this country down to the last detail, and if we began a large scale movement of men from the economically derelict areas into the other areas, and moved new industries into the derelict areas. Incidentally, it seems to me that the glass-house industry might be more usefully set up in a coal area than many of the other industries which it is suggested those coal areas should take up. I do not think the Market Supply Committee is the proper body to do all that. We may find on further experience of these schemes that it is the proper body, and if we do it will be time enough then for us to embark upon that development. We have commission after commission sitting, planning going on at high speed.
There is a great new problem for this committee to work, which is not planning but watching supplies coming forward to this country and watching the working of these Orders which we are now putting into force. We have enough work for this committee to do. The planning is to some extent being carried out now, and it will be time enough to come back to the House seeking a revision of the functions of the committee when we have had experience. Much thought has been given to this plan and it would be a dangerous thing to alter it now. Let us see how it works, and if it needs revision I shall be the first to come to the House and ask that it should be revised.

Amendment negatived.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "nine."
This is the first of two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). If this Amendment to increase the number to nine is accepted, we should then propose that the Members of the Market Supply Committee other than the Chairman should consist of three persons representing the producers, three the distributors and three the consumers. After listening to the Debate and to the state-
ment by the Minister on the last Amendment, we did not Divide in favour of it because we accept his word that this committee is to have a planning function. He was not prepared to go as far as we on this side of the Committee would like to go, however. Indeed, there has been a difference from the very day on which the Bill came up for Second Reading. We on this side then emphasised the importance of this Clause 3. After having conferred very active and important functions upon the President of the Board of Trade, we have now come to a point where the Minister of Agriculture is independent of the Board of Trade and has to consult solely the Market Supply Committee.
In to-day's Debate we have listened to speeches showing how difficult it will be for the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture to be working together and consulting each other on matters which will be thoroughly unfamiliar to one or other of the parties. We have had an example of that, in the language used just now by the Minister of Agriculture, who said that the Market Supply Committee would be like a person in charge of a power-house watching a pressure gauge. That was not so much an evidence of confusion as was the metaphor used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade when, earlier on, he brought into the discussion a nautical metaphor in which he said that his object was to save the ship from sinking. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade brought a ship on to land, and asked us to save the ship of agriculture from sinking in the sea of depression in which we find ourselves. The Minister of Agriculture turns at once to the mechanical and the engineering side, and asks us to look at a pressure gauge with him. That shows how difficult it is to get men to think together; in trying to accommodate themselves to a mutual activity they get all tangled up, and, in this case, have failed to make themselves intelligible to the House.
We attach very much importance to this Clause. Here is the core and the centre of the position of which the House is now asked to approve. If the Market Supply Committee fail, we feel sure that all the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture in limiting and regulating
the imports of goods must fail. I would like to be allowed to extend a word of advice to agriculturists, and particularly to one of them whom I see looking very happy, now that he has got a Bill after his own heart. Although he represents agriculture, and is himself a practical agriculturist, in his heart of hearts he attaches much more importance to the services that the Board of Trade can render him than to the services that the Ministry of Agriculture can give under this Bill. My word of advice to him is: Not so much of the Board of Trade and more of the Ministry of Agriculture; a little more confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, and a little more reliance upon the Market Supply Committee which will survey the conditions of agriculture, the quantity of the various products produced, the extent of our markets, the prices in those markets, the competition in various commodities coming from foreign countries and the origin of that competition. The Market Supply Committee will be the general supervisor of the industry of agriculture, and can confer much more advantage upon the agricultural industry than can the indiscriminate and the easy use of the Orders of the Board of Trade for the regulation of imports, contained in the first two Clauses of the Bill. We want to make the Market Supply Committee the governing influence in the regeneration of agriculture.
We do not accept the Minister's reference to the brown book dealing with the pig industry, and to another book dealing with the milk industry, and his taking up these books so easily and saying: "Here is the plan for the reorganisation of the industry." That is not a plan; it is simply a specific treatment for one specific side of the industry. We do not believe that that is a plan. The Market Supply Committee, with all the sectional boards in front of them and all the difficulties of agriculture and the conditions of the market ever present to their eyes, can give valuable advice to the Minister and to the industry itself. It is because we are confident in the Market Supply Committee above all other things that we say that the committee shall be extended in number and that four persons are not enough. We want the number of the committee to be raised from four members to nine, and that the nine should be made
up of three to represent the interests of the producers, which ought to satisfy the agricultural Members in this House; three to represent the interests of the distributors, who are a very important party in regard to the purposes of the Bill and who will act between the farms where the products are raised and the consumers, who live, in many instances, at a great distance from the place where the products are raised, and three to serve the interests of the consumers. That will be a well-balanced committee, not too large and not at all unwieldy. We have been advised by the Minister to accept an executive committee which was not to exceed seven in number. That was a figure which he put forward as almost the ideal number to do executive work because of the various interests involved. Because of the great responsibility that the Market Supply Committee will have to bear, in the fulfilment of the promise made by the Government in bringing forward this Bill, we ask that these three sections shall have equal representation, and that not more than three persons shall represent every branch. Those three sections will be represented also in the development schemes and upon the development boards.
The consumer has no place in this Bill. There is ample room for the extension of this committee from four to nine in number, and when that figure has been raised, there will be ample room for three representatives of the consumers. Let it not be assumed that though they be representative directly of the consumers, they will be indifferent to the case of the producers and the distributors. I am a consumer. I am not a farmer, and I am not interested in the distribution of farm products. I am simply a consumer, like a great Majority of the people in this country, but I am very much interested in agriculture, and I believe that the time has come when we should strive, not only to redress the unequal balance of trade between ourselves and other countries, but to make determined efforts to employ a very large number of our own people on the land and to grow a considerably greater proportion of the food that we consume. The representative of the consumers' interests will not be indifferent to the interests of the producer and the distributor, or the interests of the country as a whole. We believe that it will be an advantage to the operation of
this scheme if the Market Supply Committee be made a real executive committee, and a real advisory committee of representatives who would help the Government, and especially help the Ministry of Agriculture, in the very important duty which now devolves upon that Department.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I think that the whole House will agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Grower (Mr. D. Grenfell). We are all anxious to see agriculture a more prosperous industry employing a larger number of people. In those remarks I find myself in complete and long-standing agreement with him, but when he turns to the Market Supply Committee, and seeks to make it, at one moment of his speech, an executive committee and a real planning committee, and, at another, a representative committee upon which the consumers and others will be heard, he seems to be putting upon that body, which has a useful part to play, a variety of contradictory functions which will not make it a very useful link in the plan of the Bill. May I state what was rather fully gone into in the Committee upstairs, namely, the function of this Market Supply Committee? It is a small committee, whose function, as my right hon. Friend said on the last Amendment, is to keep their eye upon the state of the supply of agricultural products in this country, on the result of Orders restricting the importation of these products from abroad, and generally on the operation of these regulative Orders. The function of the committee, that is to say, is confined to the supply of agricultural products in its original form and in its altered form, altered as it may be by Orders and so forth. The committee are to keep their eye on these problems, and report to the Minister.
I do not think anyone can deny that that is a very important function, especially when this country is entering into a new field, the field of quantitative restriction of supplies from abroad. It is a function which, in my judgment, will need people of trained intellect and careful and businesslike habits of mind, with the power of analysing figures and situations and searching out the necessary information. It is clear that for such work
a small committee is necessary, and it seems to me, as I think it will probably seem to the House, that no worse way of appointing such a committee could be found than to make it representative of, firstly, producers, secondly, distributors, and, thirdly, consumers. I say that because the result of the adoption of this method of appointment would be to give the committee a certain emphasis, and to give it exactly the kind of emphasis that you do not want. What is necessary here is a Committee independent in judgment and concentrated upon their job, and I can imagine no less satisfactory way of finding the type of committee that is needed than the method proposed in the second Amendment. I do not say that by good fortune it might not be possible to find them by searching through the ranks of the producers, consumers and distributors, but merely that that is an entirely wrong method of approaching the problem of finding them, and one that is not likely to lead to the formation of a successful committee. I think I have said enough to show, also, that it is desirable that the committee should be as small in number as it reasonably can be, and I think that a committee consisting of a chairman and four members does fill the bill.
I was amused when the hon. Gentleman poured scorn on the reorganisation committees and the Minister's references to them, for the system of inquiry into the necessary planning of various branches of the agricultural industry by reorganisation committees is embodied in the Act of 1931. I do not think that anyone who has any familiarity with the subject doubts the value of the reports of both the pig and the milk commissions, and in constituting these commissions, and to a large extent in framing the policy with regard to the milk industry and the pig industry, we are merely carrying out the policy which was instituted by our predecessors, the Labour Government. I think that no good purpose is served, if I may say so in all friendliness, by pouring scorn and contempt upon the reorganisation commissions which have already sat or those which may be sitting, or upon the view that, if you are going to plan the agricultural industry, you must do so branch by branch.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There must be some co-ordination between one section and another.

Mr. SKELTON: I should have thought that the essential thing was to study each branch. The function of co-ordinating is an important one, but the first thing to do is to find out the actual needs of the separate branches, and I cannot see that very much would be gained by co-ordinating, say, a raspberry scheme in Scotland with a hop scheme in Kent. The effective way to replan the agricultural industry is to investigate by means of reorganisation committees each of the main branches of agriculture, and to let practical and wise men apply their minds to the planning that must take place. That planning, which is vital, fundamental, and of the first importance, was arranged for by the Labour Government's Act of 1931.
The scope of the Market Supply Committee is much more limited. I quite appreciate, and have appreciated all through the Debates we have had, the fact that my hon. Friends opposite are using this Market Supply Committee as a peg on which to hang a variety of interesting proposals and ideas, and none of us complain that those ideas should have been brought before the Committee and the House; but, when it comes to dealing practically with the proposals in this Bill, I suggest that the Market Supply Committee should not be charged with functions quite outside its scope, and, further, that the method of appointing it should not be one which at the outset would give it a completely wrong emphasis, and lead people to believe that its functions are different from what they are to be.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that each phase of agricultural life must be separately examined and separate conclusions reached, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) truly said in his interjection, there must be some co-ordinated plan if we are to secure the very best results from this Market Supply Committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Pig Commission and the Milk Commission, both of which conducted very valuable inquiries, but the evidence is now on record, and I want him to visualise the infliction upon five men of the duty of examining what ought to be done with regard to mutton, lamb, bacon, butter, cheese, milk,
potatoes, cereals, fruit and vegetables, while on the top of all these primary products, they must now pay some attention to secondary products. Clearly, it is a tremendous duty, and one which will not be carried out and completed for years ahead if it is left in the hands of these five men.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the interests referred to in our second Amendment would not furnish the best sort of Committee for reorganising our agriculture from top to bottom, but, even if we exclude the possibility of appointing representatives of producers, distributors and consumers, and concentrate upon the appointment of nine persons whose duty it will be to reorganise agriculture from top to bottom, determining which area or areas are most suitable for the production of certain commodities, transferring from uneconomic areas to economic areas the production of certain commodities, and so forth, nine would not be a large number to undertake such a gigantic problem. Agricultural produce in 1925 was estimated to be worth £273,000,000. More recently, as the result of price reductions, the output would be worth round about £220,000,000. If, as the Minister has stated, we are to restore 100,000 men to the land or if, as some optimists suggest, there is a possibility of restoring 250,000, how long will it take five men to produce a scheme ranging from vegetables to the production of cattle, all on scientific lines, one woven and interwoven with the other. There is more in the Amendment than the hon. Gentleman appears to imagine.
We argued that the Market Supply Committee ought to be charged with the responsibility of the planning of agriculture, but the Government have turned down that planning scheme. We regret it, because, not only is organisation necessary if agriculture is to be successful, but complete reorganisation is essential also. We have had some experience of Boistering up economic industries, sugar-beet for instance. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) tells us that to produce sugar-beet is the finest assistance that we could give to the arable cultivator. There may be some point in that argument as a temporary expedient, but for a permanent scheme, whereby we are going to make the maximum use of our own soil, utilising it according to natural and
meterological conditions, we need to plan. There has to be much more solid thinking and acting than there has been in the past. Nine men seem a lot to the hon. Gentleman, but the Government have already employed 1,200 extra Customs officials Since they took office. Nine is not a gigantic number. The problem calls for a larger number of men, business men who know something about the use of soil, machinery and the last thing in fertilisers. We do not think we are asking for too much in asking for nine members, so that the job, instead of being a 50-year plan, may possibly be a five-year plan. If the Government would see the wisdom of doing the thing on a grand scale, having sufficient men with sufficient brains to reorganise it from top to bottom, they would confer a lasting benefit on agriculture.

8.39 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I am pleased that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment. It is entirely superfluous. The hon. Member who moved it advised me to have confidence in the Board of Trade, the Board of Agricul ture and the Supply Committee. I am always willing to take good advice, and I thank him for it, but I shall only have confidence in those Departments so long as they each continue to deal with those questions which are pertinent to their own particular Department. The duties of the Supply Committee are to consider supplies and not to consider schemes. I should be very sorry if any particular Interest was included on the committee. When you put on particular interests, you generally find that the individual looks upon it as his duty to look after that interest, often to the detriment of others, and you do not get the equal balance that you ought to have. To my mind, the qualification for members of the committee is not that they should represent any particular industry or section of industry, but capacity as men of business, with ability to collect information, to study facts, to come to conclusions on the information that they receive, and to give an unbiased opinion to the Minister. If we add to that any particular interests, or try to detract from their qualifications, we shall be doing something detrimental to the proper working of the committee.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It seems to me that this committee will be concerned primarily with producing, and it will tend to become more or less a producers' committee. It will to a large extent represent producers, because it will always have to be examining questions of supply, and it seems to me that there ought to be co-ordination between this and other committees. No one wants to wreck the scheme. Everyone will do what he possibly can if there is to be any improvement or promise of improvement for agriculture. My friends on this side of the House are not nearly so opposed to agriculture as is usually assumed. In my young days it was a Socialist, Robert Blatchford, who in his famous "Merrie England" did more to arouse the, people to the neglect of agriculture than any other writer in the early 'nineties. He continued his work in a book called "Britain for the British." Socialists have always taken an interest in the matter and have wanted to rectify the lack of balance as between the manufacturing and the agricultural side of our common social life. I interjected a remark a moment ago with regard to coordination. The Minister was not very encouraging about that. He has had two reports, a Milk Report and a Pig Report.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are getting rather far from the Amendment. The only question is as to the composition and the number of members of the committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Then I press for the committee to be made as large as possible in order that its work may be as coherent and as complete as possible. I think a larger committee is required. The problem is a pressing one. The committee is top small for the magnitude of the work to be undertaken. The Amendment is put forward in no party spirit, but with the intention of assisting as far as possible. It seems to me that the Government might have accepted so simple an Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible on the Report stage to raise a question on the Motion "That the Clause stand part"? I want to raise a point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member has been long enough
in the House to know that on the Report stage a Motion to the effect "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is not taken, and that the House is solely confined to the Amendments.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only thought that I might be enabled to raise a particular point at this stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that what the hon. Member suggests is impossible. The hon. Member might have been in order in moving to omit the Clause, but the time for that has passed.

CLAUSE 4.—(Submission and approval of development schemes.)

8.46 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out Subsection (3).
I rise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) to move the Amendment which stands in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). I will read the short Sub-section in order to impress upon hon. Members who are present the large scope which it covers:
The making of an order in pursuance of this section shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order and the scheme approved thereby have been duly-made and approved and are within the powers conferred by this Act.
There is a similar provision in Clause 7, Sub-section (2), which my hon. Friends will also move to leave out. It is clear by the mere recital of these words that the power which they propose to convey is an extremely large one, and, indeed, the matter raises a point of serious constitutional importance. I am only sorry that the hour is not propitious and that most hon. Members, very naturally and in accordance with custom are, at this (moment caring more for the needs of their own constitutions than for those of the constitution of the country. This provision goes beyond the scope of this Bill and raises a number of wide considerations. There are three elements in the constitution—the legislative, the executive and the judicial. All three have their proper functions in defence of the interests and the liberties of the citizen, but in this provision two of them connive to oust the third; Parliament and
the Government to oust the jurisdiction of the courts of law.
I know that whoever answers—perhaps the learned Solicitor-General who is present proposes to answer on this Amendment—may point out that there is an exactly similar provision in the Agricultural Marketing, Act, 1931, in Section 1, Sub-section (7), and that that having been endorsed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and not challenged in the last Parliament, which passed that Measure, we are precluded from raising the point now. But Since 1931 something has happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not referring to the General Election or to the realignment of political forces. In this particular matter there has been a strong movement in the country, led by important legal personages, of protest against what was called the new despotism, and Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice, and others have impugned legislation of this character. So far as their criticism related to the conferring by Parliament upon Ministers of the powers of making Orders and Regulations, for my own part I think it was exaggerated. Parliament must devolve upon Ministers large powers of making Orders and Regulations. The affairs of the country have become so complicated and the actions of the State so elaborate that it is impossible for the House of Commons to attend to every detail and to embody in its Statutes every small provision to which it is necessary to give legal authority. But this particular proposal stands upon a different footing from that. Here it is not a question of giving a Minister power to make regulations on points of detail to which Parliament cannot give sufficient attention. This provision is of a different order. The provision says that when a Minister has made such regulations they are to be accepted as valid and sacrosanct and no citizen can challenge them on any point of law in any court of law. That is an entirely different matter.
As a consequence of the agitation to which I have referred, the late Government appointed a special committee of inquiry into the powers of Ministers, and that committee was of a very authoritative character. I hold in my hand its report which was signed by these persons: Sir Leslie Scott, who was the chairman: Sir John Anderson, who
was then the permanent head of the Home Office; Lord Bridgeman; Dr. E. Leslie Burgin, who was then a Member of this House, and who was no doubt appointed on account of his legal qualifications; Lord Donoughmore; Sir Warren Fisher, the permanent head of the Treasury; Sir Boger Gregory; Sir William Holdsworth, K.C.; Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, K.C; Professor Harold Laski, whose name will carry weight with hon. Members on the benches opposite; Mr. B. Richards, who was then a Member of Parliament; Sir Claud Schuster; Mr. Gavin Simonds, K.C; Miss Ellen Wilkinson, then a Member of Parliament, and Sir John Withers, then as now, a respected Member of this House. There is a very strong list of signatories, and a report unanimously signed by those persons must command the close attention of this House. The committee went into the very point which I am now bringing before the House. They said, after discussing several forms of legislation of a somewhat analogous character but not quite the same, on page 40 of the report:
Some statutes, however, contain a different and more elaborate provision which seems on its face to have been designed with the express purpose of completely and fiNaily excluding all control by the courts. It runs as follows:
'The Minister may confirm the order, and the confirmation shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act.'
This is substantially the same as the words in the Sub-section which are now before us, and they quote as examples of such legislation the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and the Housing Act, 1925. They go on to say:
But the clause is objectionable, and we doubt whether it is ever justified.
They mention that there are some very exceptional cases, to which they refer later, in which it might conceivably be justified, and I will read the later passage in which the matter is gone into more carefully and more thoroughly. They say, in page 61, as follows:
We reported in paragraph 8 at page 41 our objection to the use in Acts of Parliament of clauses purporting to enact that the mere making of a regulation by a Minister under the Act should be 'conclusive evidence' that in doing so he had
not exceeded his statutory power. We are of opinion that in delegating legislative functions to a Minister, Parliament should be careful to preserve in all but the very exceptional cases, which we describe below, the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law to decide whether in any purported exercise of those functions the Minister has acted within the limits of his delegated power.
That is a very clear expression of this authoritative opinion. They go on to say:
The rule of law requires that all regulations should be open to challenge in the Courts except when Parliament deliberately comes to the conclusion that it is essential in the public interest to create an exception and to confer on a Minister the power of legislating with immunity from challenge.
Then they give the exceptions to which they refer, which are not in the least analogous to the provisions of this present Bill.
We recognise that such exceptions must be created in cases where finality is desirable, e.g., where power is given to a Minister to make law upon the faith of which titles to property may be created or money may be raised, e.g., Stock Regulations, or upon which marriages may be solemnised, e.g., Regulations under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892. But we are of opinion that when for such reasons the regulation cannot remain indefinitely open to challenge there should be an initial period of challenge of at least three months and preferably six months.
They conclude:
Apart from emergency legislation, we hardly think there can be any case so exceptional in its nature, as to make it both politic and just to prohibit the possibility of challenge altogether.
Therefore, with regard to she cases under this Bill this authoritative committee, whose report was signed by the persons I have named, clearly state that legislation of this kind is open to grave objection, and they very clearly deprecate it.
I know the Minister may say, as Dr. Addison said when the case was discussed in Standing Committee on the Bill of two years ago, that the cases are differentiated by the fact that prior to the making of the Order a Resolution of each House of Parliament has to be obtained, and that that gives the Parliamentary sanction which is specifically required for the particular Order, but I submit that that is not an adequate answer. We all know what the procedure is when Orders come before the House for sanction. When an Order of this kind comes before this House or before the other House for
sanction it is taken as a whole. It is simply laid in the Library, and, with rare exceptions, no Member takes the slightest interest in it. It cannot be challenged on any point of detail. No one can move an Amendment to it. It has to be accepted as a whole. The procedure is absolutely perfunctory and cannot in the least take the place of proceedings in a court of law on a specific point which may be open to challenge. That is why I submit that the answer given by Dr. Addison to the Conservative Members who raised this point in the Standing Committee two years ago is not a justification for ousting the jurisdiction of the court, and does not rebut the recommendations of the Committee to which I have referred which was signed so recently as March, 1932. I therefore move the Amendment and submit that if, after the attention of Parliament has been clearly drawn to the matter by an authoritative committee appointed for this very purpose, among others, the House repudiates the views of that Committee, it cannot fail to be a precedent for future legislation. I would appeal to the Government to accept the legal advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his non-official capacity rather than to follow the precedents, which I admit exist, but which should now be repudiated in view of the authoritative report of a Committee whose names should carry weight in all quarters of the House.

8.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): Nobody is going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else is precluded from raising this point on account of the changed circumstances Since 1931 to which he has referred, or even those other circumstances to which he has alluded, but when he says that for the first time, as it were, he has become alive to the fact that a serious constitutional issue of first importance is raised by this Clause, I must remind the House that the Clause is taken from the Act of 1931, and that in the course of its progress through the House in 1931 not one single voice was raised from the Liberal benches in defence of the constitutional doctrine which has been so clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, and that in spite of the fact that, although the Donoughmore Com-
mittee had not then reported, the Lord Chief Justice of England had already written his book about "The New Despotism," several years, therefore, I think that we may say that the public were quite alive, as were also Members of this House, to the importance of this particular point.
There is really no substance in the point in this particular instance, because so far from the right hon. Gentleman gaining any support from the Donoughmore Committee in respect of this particular Bill this is precisely one of the cases covered by the passage in the Donoughmore Commission's report to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. They say, while objecting to the Clause in general, that they:
recognise that exceptions must be created in cases where finality is desirable,
and they give as one of the instances:
where money may be raised on the strength of an Order.
That is precisely the case. The moment one of these schemes have been approved it is inherent—I need not go into the whole of the details—in the Bill that money will be raised as soon as the necessary formalities have been complied with. That is precisely the case indicated by the Donoughmore Commission. Where such a. case arises it is true they say that:
There should be an initial period of challenge of at least three months and preferably six months.
I agree that in form there is no such period in the Bill. That is to say, there is nothing in the Bill which declares that three months or even six months or some given period after the Minister has made an Order the thing shall cease to be challengeable. I agree that there is no such provision, but in practice that period of challenge will exist. Will hon. Members reflect that in the whole of the Bill and the Schedule to it there are many formalities to be gone through before the Minister can make an Order? For example, the marketing boards concerned with the marketing schemes have to publish notices, and it is laid down that a period of not less than six weeks is to elapse before the matter comes up for the Minister's consideration. The Minister may make modifications and he, again, must allow not less than four weeks to elapse when he has made any
modifications and, not least important, he has to be satisfied before approval is given that every one of the people connected with the constituent marketing schemes have held the appropriate poll and consequently opportunities have been given for objections. It is apparent that all these things must take time. I believe, although I have no means of checking it, that the time cannot possibly, in practice, be less than six months. If you have half, only three months, that is the period of challenge to which the Donoughmore Commission referred.
FiNaily, we are dealing here with something which is not just done at the will of the Minister. The Minister cannot make an Order until two sets of things have happened. First, all the formalities to which I have referred must take place, and, secondly, when these formalities have been gone through the proposed Order is not merely to lie on the Table of the House, as the right hon. Member suggested, but there is to be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It is, therefore, idle to say, if there is any substantial objection to a scheme, that Members of this House are so little alive to their duties, particularly those who are opposed to the scheme, as to allow the matter to pass sub silentio. I agree that it is most necessary to keep a watch on the question of delegated powers, but I suggest that this is not a good instance in which to take the matter up. Historically it is at one with the Act of 1931, and it is inherent in the whole business that a considerable time must elapse before the Minister can make an Order; and he can only make it after an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

9.8 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member opposite, but in this matter I certainly do. It seems to us that if you are going to have legislation by Orders in Council, which is a development absolutely necessary if you are going to carry through the fundamental changes which the Minister of Agriculture desires in crder to convert this country into a condition of State Capttalism, you must have certain means of action which cannot be disputed, which cannot be taken to the courts, and you cannot allow people with
different opinions to play havoc with a properly planned scheme. This is an excellent precedent which will be followed widely in the future, and seems to us in every way to be desired. We shall be delighted when on future occasions we have to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the excellence of the precedent.

9.10 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: The Solicitor-General was making a false point when he referred to the time that must elapse before these scheme can come into operation. The last word on schemes before they come before the House is with the Minister, and he may modify any scheme as he likes. To say, therefore, that the time that has elapsed before that happens should really count in the six months, which the Commitee in their report say should elapse after the Orders are laid before Parliament, is an argument which does not apply. The time should be taken from the time when the scheme has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and for the Government to ignore entirely the recommendation of the Committee, that there should be a six months delay, is a bad beginning for a Government which wants to carry out the findings of this Commitee.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: This is a matter upon which I feel very strongly, more strongly perhaps than my leader the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). A pernicious system of legislation by regulation is growing apace, and it should be seriously viewed by hon. Members of this House. It is not merely a delegation of authority, but is fast becoming an absolute abrogation of the authority of this House. If we are to add to the power which is now given to Ministers to make regulations the additional power that their regulations are not to be challenged at all in the courts, then the House must contemplate, and I hope will not contemplate with equanimity, the possibility of its authority being entirely subordinated to Government Departments. It is for these reasons that I support the Amendment, and I ask the House to realise the extreme length to which we are going in the way of giving power to Ministers to make Orders in Council and by way of regulation.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. E. EVANS: There are two points of view from which this Amendment can be resisted. One is the point of view taken by the Solicitor-General, but it is not very convincing. The mere fact that the hon. and learned Member can cite precedents for a Clause of this character is no reason why the House should submit to another. Last year we had the privilege of reading the report of an important committee which considered this matter carefully, and made certain recommendations; and we ought not to pass a Clause of this character without realising that we are being asked to pass a Clause which is in definite contradiction to the recommendations of that Committee. The other way of resisting the Amendment is the method adopted by the late Solicitor-General and it is one which I can readily appreciate and understand. This Clause is the very thing for which the Socialist party stands; it is the assumption of power to themselves to do what they wish, irrespective of the authority of Parliament and of the views of the people, which Parliament represents. From the hon. and learned Member's point of view I agree; but this is not by any means the only Socialistic part of this Bill. The manner in which Members of the Conservative party are, with apparent enthusiasm, adopting some

of the Socialistic provisions of this Bill, is amazing to me. I do not happen to be a Socialist or a Conservative, and as one who takes another line of political thought, with a Liberal outlook in politics as well as in other things, I enter my emphatic protest against the assumption of these powers by the present Government, and against their giving so convenient a precedent to another Government which many years hence may succeed them.

9.16 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I have great sympathy with those who have brought this matter forward. I would warn the Government that they ought to have the point properly considered in another place before light-heartedly putting this provision on the Statute Book, this handing over of powers which might easily be created into ownership by the State, without any chance of protest in this House. The proposal does not follow the analogy of the Town Planning Bill or the Land Drainage Bill which were passed recently. If it were on those line3 it would be much sounder and safer legislation than it is.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 23.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[9.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fermoy, Lord


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)
Cape, Thomas
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Albery, Irving James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford


Allan, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Coffox, Major William Philip
Gaff, Sir Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cook, Thomas A.
Goldie, Noel B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooke, Douglas
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gower, Sir Robert


Banfield, John William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, William P. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cross, R. H.
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dagger, George
Grenfelt, E. C. (City of London)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsn'th, C.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Grimston, R. V.


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Groves, Thomas E.


Blinded, James
Dobble, William
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bossom, A. C.
Drewe, Cedric
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hales, Harold K.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dunglass, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Edwards, Charles
Hanbury, Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Elmley, Viscount
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burghley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Harbord, Arthur


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hicks, Ernest George
Munro, Patrick
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hirst, George Henry
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon, Herbert H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
North, Edward T.
Spens, William Patrick


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nunn, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen
Stones, James


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pearson, William G.
Storey, Samuel


Hurd, Sir Percy
Penny, Sir George
Strauss, Edward A.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


John, William
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Potter, John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Price, Gabriel
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tate, Mavit Conetanca


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lawson, John James
Rankin, Robert
Thone, William James


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ray, Sir William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leonard, William
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Levy, Thomas
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lewis, Oswald
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Logan, David Gilbert
Renter, John R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick Wallsend)


Lunn, William
Roberts, sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Robinson, John Roland
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mc Entee, Valentine L.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Wells, Sydney Richard


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross, Ronald D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McKie, John Hamilton
Rots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


McLean, Major sir Alan
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sarideman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley, Walter James


Milner, Major James
Scone, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Major George Davies and Dr.




Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rothschild, James A. de


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jonet, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKeag, William



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, James
Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood and


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Mr. Walter Rea.

CLAUSE 6.—(Effect of development schemes.)

9.26 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 1 to 39, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(b) he is a producer under one of the schemes for regulating the marketing of the secondary product to which the development scheme applies.
I shall explain briefly the purpose of this Amendment, which will very much abridge the Clause if it is carried. This Clause deals with the effect of development schemes and lays down a procedure by which development schemes are to control the production of secondary products. Sub-section (1) states:
A development scheme may require that no person shall produce the secondary product in any premises in the area to which a related marketing scheme for regulating the marketing of that product applies, unless either—
(a) he is exempt from registration under that marketing scheme; or
We propose to leave out the words of the Sub-section that follow, and to insert the words in the Amendment This drastic condensation of the Clause is intended to prevent the coming into operation of a very dangerous scheme of licensing and of conditions under which licences may be issued, or denied, or revoked after being issued. The House will notice that one of the conditions which we regard as very dangerous indeed is that the
Development Board may be empowered to grant a producer's licence
subject to such conditions as the board, having regard to the interests of the persons registered as producers under the related marketing schemes, think necessary for promoting efficient production of the said product in the premises to which the licence relates or for preventing or reducing excessive production of that product, and may further empower the development board to revoke a producer's licence if any condition subject to which the licence was granted is contravened.
The House, in giving a Second Reading to the Bill, did not mean to approve provisions which are not for the development or expansion of the agricultural industry or of the manufacture of secondary products but which, in certain conditions, provide for the curtailment and restriction of production or of what is termed excessive production of the various products at home. This Clause, to which we raise objection, makes it possible for a licence to be granted only on the condition that the applicant pledges himself to restrict production of various kinds of agricultural products in this country. We object very strongly to that being done, or even contemplated.
We on this side of the House have supported this Bill and have worked as diligently in Committee as Members supporting the Government to make it a workable Bill. We did not lose the opportunity in Committee of voicing our objection to this point. We raise it again now, and we ask the House to give careful attention to what is contained in the words we propose to leave out. By those words the House will be committed to the endorsement of a plan which will mean that, instead of agricultural production being increased in this country, there may be a considerable reduction of the production of agricultural products of one kind or another. It is to us a mystery which has not been cleared up by the speeches we have heard to-day. No one in the House yet knows the Government's plan. Nobody knows whether the Bill is designed to expand and to increase agricultural production at home. We know, in a general way, that the Government are committed to an increase of the prices of primary products, including agricultural products, at home and abroad. We know quite well that a scarcity of goods in our home markets may be exploited for the purpose
of raising prices. We know quite well that the limitation of imports from abroad may mean a smaller volume of food imports and yet here we find that a definite bar to production may be one of the conditions under which a producer's licence may be issued by the Development Board. We propose to omit that condition because, if it is left in, there is a grave danger that these Development Boards, working solely in the interests of producers and with no representation of the consumer on them, may make it a condition of granting licences that producers shall reduce their production.
We made a protest against this provision in Committee, and we were told by the Noble Lord opposite that we should not object to it because we were living in very strange times. The argument then used—and it has been used again to-day—was that we were living in a period of glutted markets, and that we must defend ourselves from foreign products. That may be all right but, in addition to that, we are told that it is not sufficient to regulate imports from foreign countries but that we must also defend ourselves against the glut at home. The Noble Lord opposite said that we must protect ourselves against surplus production at home. The argument used is as follows: Suppose the normal acreage of potatoes is planted this year and it is found that the crop is likely to be abnormally heavy. That is ordinarily a thing of good fortune, but the Noble Lord says that it is a terrible menace, that prices will fall, and that we must guard ourselves against a fall in prices. The Noble Lord said that it would be necessary to issue licences in order to prevent a glut in our own production; in order to prevent what would, in ordinary times, be regarded as goor fortune—the result of the smiles of nature upon the labours of the producer. The Noble Lord said it would be necessary, in such a case, to limit production and to give licences to manufacturers only to produce an agreed quantity. That argument, I admit, was not applied in connection with this—

Viscount WOLMER: It was not applied in connection with the development schemes. There could not possible be a glut of sausages for instance.

Mr. GRENFELL: There might be.

Viscount WOLMER: Not produced by nature.

Mr. GRENFELL: Someone might invent a new sausage machine like that wonderful machine of which we have seen illustrations—the animal going in alive at one end and the sausages coming out at the other. There might be a glut even of manufactured secondary products. The principle to which we object is that there should be limitation of production under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. We were told that the intention of this Measure was to increase the production of agricultural products and of the secondary products manufactured from those agricultural products. If that is not the intention, then the country ought to know. I feel sure the country will not put up with this elaborate machinery of regulations and licences if the sole intention is to restrict the production and supply of commodities. If the Bill is designed to cause greater production at home and larger employment, both on the land and in the manufacture of secondary products, a good many people will ovErieok theoretical or political objections to it, but if it is designed to reduce production and to raise prices, then the people of the country will not ovErieok those objections. We believe that a much more direct way of regulation and of carrying on the development boards is proposed in the Amendment.

9.38 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I only rise to point out to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that he cannot have it both ways. Hon. Members opposite have always asked for the planning of agriculture and I have admired them for taking that line. That is the contribution which they have made to the solution of the agricultural problem and when they were in office they made an attempt, praiseworthy in many ways, in that direction. But you cannot have a planning of agriculture unless you give the development boards powers such as are contained in this Clause. The hon. Member opposite maintains that this is a power of restricting output but general control naturally implies that power among others. The object, however, is not to restrict but to develop as one can
see even by the name of the boards. In order to secure a planned development, instead of haphazard development such as we have had in the past, it is necessary to give the boards these powers. That does not mean that a board is going to set about restricting the production of secondary products by every means it can employ. This is merely a necessary sanction to enable the boards to carry out that planned development for which hon. Members opposite have always asked. I suggest to hon. Members who are trying to create a scare on this subject that they have found a mare's nest. They are in a position in which they ought not to be at all, because they have taken a very honourable part on this question of the planning of agriculture and this Clause merely carries into effect one of the principles for which they have frequently contended.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The Noble Lord says that the object of the Clause is not to stop production, but the Clause allows that to be done. The development boards can stop production, can regulate production, can buy or sell property, can grant compensation, can take over the powers of marketing boards, can insure, advertise or transport agricultural products, and can demand from holders of licences a full disclosure of their accounts. I drew attention in Committee to many things in this Clause and the Minister kindly answered my points in a letter but I am not satisfied with the answer. One of my points concerned the position of a producer of a secondary product having to purchase his primary product within a given area. The Minister will not object if I read from his letter on that point:
It is competent for a marketing board regulating the sale of a primary product to determine the persons to whom the product may be sold and thus to prohibit sales to persons outside certain areas but I can conceive of no circumstances in which such a course of action would be to the benefit of the producer.
That may be true, but although such a case is not likely to arise, because of the areas of the scheme, yet I think it would be better if the Clause made it clear that choice of market would be guaranteed. The case which I had in mind was that of a secondary producer who bought from several areas under several marketing schemes. The Amend-
ment would make it clear that that secondary producer was not to be limited in his purchases to one particular area but could go outside to other areas providing those areas were within marketing schemes generally. As I read the Clause, particularly down to line 39, a development board may grant licences subject to such conditions as are necessary for preventing or reducing excessive production, and the board is to have regard to primary producers under the related marketing scheme. Suppose a producer of a secondary product used Colonial or foreign raw material. Could a development board say to that firm, "Your production is excessive because of your purchase of Colonial or foreign imports"? Could it be made a condition of the firm's licence to produce that it should cease or reduce its oversea trade?
I would also like the Minister to inform the House as to how a secondary producer would fare under the milk scheme. Would he be free to buy in any area or confined to one area only? The Amendment, if carried, would allow a secondary producer not to go outside a marketing scheme but to go into different areas. I assure the Minister that my purpose in supporting this Amendment is not to show any antagonism to marketing schemes as such, but to try to make the machinery clearer and to secure that a secondary producer should not be tied to a given area. Is it not possible, either at this stage or in the other House, to make it clear that secondary producers would have freedom of expansion outside a given area?

9.46 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: As to the general position, there is little to add to the observations made by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). It is, of course, a pity that planning means selection, and that selection means saying, "We shall have this and not that," and, unfortunately, if you choose not to go in for unrestricted production, you must go in for production which you are bound to restrict in some way or other. With that primary axiom, let me say that it is necessary to have these powers even where there is not only no intention to reduce production, but where the Government have specifically accepted a plan allowing for a rapid expansion of production. This arises out of
the Lane Fox Report, which the Government accepted, and in that report not merely is there no suggestion of reducing the amount of bacon produced in this country, but the rate of expansion, which has been accepted by the Government, is laid down, and that is an expansion at the rate of 10 per cent. every four months. I do not know any other industry in the country that is likely to get an increase of 10 per cent. in four months, and I am sure there are many industries which would be only too glad if they could look forward to a 10 per cent. annual increase, let alone 10 per cent. every four months.
But from the very fact that such an increase is contemplated it is necessary to ensure that when processers are being licensed for production expanding on that scale and at that rate, it must be granted that the licence shall provide, if necessary, for preventing or reducing excessive production of that product; otherwise you get, what one so often finds in processing plants all over the country, and indeed all over the world just now: some smart fellows see a chance to set up a factory and unload it on the public, rush in, and erect plant for the processing of a product that they have no plan for getting hold of. There is a scramble for the raw products, which forces up prices, there is a subsequent slump, and the processers and workers are left to carry the weight of a great expansion of factory plant which there is no means subsequently of using.
The Noble Lord mentioned the canning industry. There is indeed considerable danger of such an unregulated development taking place in the canning industry just now, and there is nothing easier, as we know, than for company promoters to run up premises to deal with a product which looks to the eyes of the investing public a genuine thing. What could be more genuine than the best kind of British plums or green peas? But they find that the factory was built to sell, not to can, and sooner or later the plum or pea producers have to bear the expense, not only of the economic factory which is running, but of the redundant factory which has to be shut down. To deal with such problems it is imperative that such powers as we are asking for should be granted.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) put two
specific points. He asked if a processer could still buy outside his area. I should think, in the instances which he gave, that there would be no bar whatever to his going outside his area. Take his suggestion as to whether a processer could be stopped because he was buying colonial or foreign stuff. No. If the importation of a given amount of colonial produce is allowed, it is clearly within the power of any processer to purchase and utilise it. The hon. Member's final question was whether in a milk scheme a man would be allowed to go outside his area. Certainly he would. Supplies drawn from outside his area would be subject to an equalisation fee when coming into the area, but he would certainly have the right to go outside. I hope the House will face up to these difficulties. They are inherent in planning, and we are taking the great step of moving into the region of planned agriculture. Let us face boldly up to the problems which it involves. They will require close supervision by this House and by the country, but this is the line which we shall have to follow, and I beg the House to face up to it.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I fully appreciate the necessity of endowing some authority with power to prevent financial ramps. I understand that there may be certain sharp folk who will exploit the new agricultural situation and gull the public, but I want to put to the Minister a concrete case, which refers to my own constituency. Some time ago three very reputable business men appreciated the possibilities of bacon-curirjg in West Wales. They had three large counties, and they felt that there were great possibilities in that area, so they proposed erecting a factory. I do not think there was much doubt as to the acquisition of Capttal, and they were prepared to back it with their own money. Negotiations were entered into for a site, and things were moving rapidly and successfully. Those people at the moment, however, have expressed great perturbation that they might be prevented from going forward with their scheme in view of the fact that authority has to be secured from the board, and they felt that it would be unwise to proceed with an enterprise demanding
£60,000 or £70,000 of Capttal without some sort of guarantee that they would be allowed to operate.
While appreciating the importance of preventing ramps, may I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to say what the position of a concern like that would be? There is no question of redundancy so far as West Wales is concerned, but there is a fear, I think, widely prevalent that perhaps certain areas would be penalised, that there would be over-centralisation, that it might be regarded that Wiltshire or Gloucestershire was close enough to Wales to provide all the curing facilities needed. What would be the position with regard to a bona fide concern of that character? While appreciating the importance of preventing ramps, I want to secure that no deterrent is placed on genuine enterprise.

9.56 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I should certainly say that an enterprise like that would have to be scrutinised from the point of view of a bona fide enterprise. There is a great amount of factory plant just now which has not become fully utilised, and it is desirable that it should be fully utilised. With the expansion such as we contemplate in the bacon-curing industry, I have little doubt that there will be opportunity for additional plant and undertakings to be put up in places where they do not exist just now. That, of course, hinges upon the progressive restriction of foreign supplies, against which my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches have frequently fulminated; but if we can secure their support for that progressive restriction I have little doubt that we shall be able to secure for the hon. Member the licence he desires, and to ensure that the supplies he desires for his own people shall be raised and cured by his own people.

Mr. EVANS: May I ask if that is a definite offer? If so, I accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:
(ii) that the granting of such a licence shall not be refused in respect of any premises for the production of the secondary product by a mutual trading organisation on an economic basis in order to meet the demands of its constituent organisations or members.
There has already been a recognition, which was given by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), of the fact that a desire to help agriculture has been displayed on these benches, and no organisation has shown a greater desire for the better co-ordination of the industry than the Co-operative Movement. It has helped the industry in many ways to conform to the requirements of the Movement. Notwithstanding what has been done, it has not been able to get all the supplies of a suitable character to meet its requirements, and it has been forced to go outside the country. The outstanding example of this is bacon. The Co-operative Society have for a number of years found it impossible to get a regularity of supply and they have found it impossible, at least as far as any result has accrued, to get people producing bacon in this country to conform to the standard that was suitable. Therefore, no blame can be attached to the Co-operative Movement in putting factories up in other parts of Europe.
The Minister has made it clear that he is preparing to limit production in this country, and steps have already been taken in this Bill to limit imports. The Co-operative Movement has expended Capttal in putting up factories in Denmark, not in order to compete with anyone in this country, but because of the impossibility of receiving satisfaction from the sources of supply in this country; not because of a desire to help Denmark, but to cope with the needs of the members of the Co-operative Movement. We now say that if they are not to be allowed to get their supplies from other countries where their own factories are, they should be given recognition of that by the restriction with regard to the erection of factories in this country not being proceeded with as it is laid down in the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: Does the Cooperative Society propose to shut down some of the factories in Denmark and open them in this country?

Mr. LEONARD: I am putting the case that if, because of the application of this Bill, a restriction is applied to a British factory that happens to be in Denmark—

Sir J. LAMB: It cannot be a British factory in Denmark.

Mr. LEONARD: It is British-owned. The desire is that if either immediately or in process of time there is a restriction that affects these factories, some regard should be had to the requirements of those factories in transferring their sites. I should like to refer the Minister to the quotation from the Lane Fox Commission which I made in Committee but which he offset by quoting another part of the Commission's Report. I suggest that the point which he quoted was rather more general than the one I placed before him, which was:
We think that consideration should be given to curers who in the interest of both pig producers and the bacon industry at home, are prepared to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom and especially to those who are also in a position to sell the bacon they produce direct to the consumer.
I suggest that if there is any desire to conform to the recommendations of the Lane Fox Commission, this specific point can only be met by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.3 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: As my hon. Friend will agree, we discussed this matter fairly fully in Committee. It is true that he brought forward the quotation which he has just made, and that I replied with a quotation one sentence from which I shall read to the House in case there are some Members who were not present in the Committee. The Lane Fox Commission's report, to which the hon. Member appeals, said, it is true, that consideration should be given to those producers whom he mentions. It also said:
The Pig Industry Development Board should be the instrument for preparing and supervising the plan of rationalisation. The sanction of this body should be required for all new construction or for extensions or existing factories, subject to appeal to the Committee of Investigation set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
I stand fully by that and by the desire which the Lane Fox Commission shows that it should be possible to transfer plant or potential output from foreign countries to this country, but I do not think it is possible to give a general acceptation in
advance of all such applications were it only for this point, to which I am sure that my hon. Friend will attach importance. The Co-operative Movement, I understand, owns two factories in Denmark, but other private interests own 18 factories. Therefore, we cannot accept this Amendment giving free entry to two factories without at the same time bringing in nine times as many. It may be that those two factories have an output which could easily be transferred to this country, but it may also be that 18 factories could not be injected into the bacon-curing mechanism of this country without causing serious dislocation. Therefore, I am perfectly willing to give the hon. Member the assurance that I do agree that serious consideration should be given to this problem—serious and sympathetic consideration; but I find it impossible to accept the Amendment without, at the same time, pledging myself to accept also a great excess of plant which we might not be able to absorb. I ask him to consider whether he could not refrain from pressing this Amendment to a Division.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In expressing our thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the partial promise he has made, we recognise that unless and until development of home production does take place no transfers will be necessary, and, indeed, no transfers would take place either on the part of the co-operative movement or the owners of private factories in Denmark, Holland or Tim-buctoo. If, however, we have the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that when any scheme is submitted to him he will bear in mind the amount of Capttal invested abroad expressly for the purpose of serving the needs of our people at home where the product was not available in sufficient quantities either at reasonable or unreasonable prices, I think we shall do well to accept the partial promise of the right hon. Gentleman.

Major ELLIOT: I shall certainly undertake to bear that in mind when these things have to be considered.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, after the word "licence" to insert the words:
(or to any person employed by him).
We recognise that the time is fast moving on, and we are anxious not to prolong the Debate, and if we content ourselves with short, sharp speeches, sometimes taking and sometimes avoiding a Division, I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not feel that our points are less strong because we are not taking longer time in submitting them. The Cluase provides that
In such class of cases as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the development board, compensation shall be payable by the board to any applicant for a producer's licence who is aggrieved by the refusal of the board to grant the licence.
My Amendment adds to those words the words:
(or to any person employed by him).
I think my Amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope that on the Floor of the House the right hon. Gentleman will produce a better argument than that a similar proposition was rejected in the case of the Coal Mines Act, when the late Willie Graham was worried by its being a minority Government and he had not the power to determine what he conceived to be either right on wrong. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give a substantial reply apart from the Electricity Act or the Coal Mines Act or any other Act. My case is a simple one. The Government are taking power to compensate any owner of property who is refused a licence to continue to produce a secondary product, and we think it is not unfair to compensate the employés of such a person. Very often those men have worked 10, 20 or 25 years for one firm, and they may constitute nine-tenths of the goodwill of the undertaking. With restriction in force prices are bound to increase, and we shall all have to pay those prices, including the man who loses his job because this particular factory is closed down. If such a man is turned out of his job because of this rationalisation scheme and no other opportunities of work are available to him, and he is also called upon to pay higher prices, we do not think he ought to be denied such compensation as may be regarded as equitable and fair. If it is fair to compensate
the owner of the factory, who may not live on the premises or play any active part in the business, it is equally fair to compensate the man who has done the job, the man who really constitutes the goodwill, the man who loses his job and, in present circumstances, is almost sentenced to death, because there is no opportunity of securing another engagement elsewhere. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forget the Electricity Act and the Coal Mines Act and will deal with his own child as he would like his own child to be dealt with.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: Nothing could be more attractive or seductive than the way in which the hon. Member has moved this Amendment, and I am particularly obliged to him,, as, indeed, all of us are, for saying that his Amendments will be dealt with briefly. If his last speech is an earnest of what the others will be, I am sure it will not mislead the House into thinking that he does not attach importance to his Amendments. I am not sure that I can respond altogether to his request to forget the Coal Mines Act, because it certainly is relevant to the principle which he wishes us to introduce into this Bill; but in practice the argument against introducing this proposal into this Bill is even stronger than it was in the case of the Coal Mines Act. This scheme presupposes certain factories being closed down, and closed down permanently, and the Capttal which has been spent upon them being, therefore, no longer of any avail, but it does not presuppose a reduced output of the particular commodity produced.
Take the case of bacon. The whole scheme is based upon a rapidly increasing output, and therefore while I can accept the view indicated by the hon. Member that men who had for years been employed in one factory—and who, he might have added, are specially skilled men— will have no further opportunity of working in that factory, it does not in the

least follow that their long-acquired skill in the matter of bacon curing will not be required in the other factories, whose output will increase. There, the House will realise, are exactly the men to whom the other factories, who are increasing their output and require a larger personnel, will naturally turn. They would not turn to men who had never done any bacon curing before. Factory B, whose output is about to be increased, will naturally turn to the employé of factory A who has been turned down.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The personnel who immediately find other employment in the same industry, because of the rationalisation process, will immediately lose compensation.

Mr. SKELTON: I was merely pointing out that this is a stronger case than even the Coal Mines Act for the principle for which the hon. Member is contending, for the reason that I have stated. You cannot imagine, and it would not be easy to figure, a case where a factory was closed down, and there was a better chance for the employés of that factory. So much for that very important point. The general proposition that, wherever a factory is closed down, compensation should be paid to the men employed by that factory, is one for which I would not stand, and for which I would not ask the House to stand. If that principle were adopted, we would entirely get away from any question of State support for the unemployed, because wherever a factory was closed down or men were turned out of work, they would apparently be eligible for compensation out of a fund which ex hypothesi would not exist. The general principle does not help the hon. Member any more than the particular case. I hope that these observations, though short, will be sufficient to put the House in possession of the argument for which the hon. Member so eloquently pleaded.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 41, Noes, 227.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[10.17 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Banfield, John William
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brawn. C. W E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Dobble, William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan, George
Edwards, Charles
Hicks, Ernest George


Cape, Thomas
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hirst, George Henry


Cocke, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Milner, Major James
Tinker, John Joseph


Lewson, John Jamos
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Leonard, William
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Price, Gabriel



McEntee, Valentine L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Mr. John and Mr. D Graham.


Maxton, James
Thorne, William James



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Gower, Sir Robert
Pearson, William G.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, William P. C.
Penny, Sir George


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Petherick, M.


Albery, Irving James
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Potter, John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hales, Harold K.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rankin, Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hanbury, Cecil
Ray, Sir William


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Harbord, Arthur
Held, David D. (County Down)


Beauchamp, Sir Brogave Campbell
Hartland, George A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harvey, George (Lambsth, Kenningt'n)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hatlam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Blinded, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Robsrts, Aled (Wrexham)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George C. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Robinson, John Roland


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ross, Ronald D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hornby, Frank
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rothschild, James A. de


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burghley, Lord
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwan)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Castle Stewart, Earl
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Scone, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Colman, N. C. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cook, Thomas A.
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cooke, Douglas
Lewis, Oswald
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spens, William Patrick


Cross, R. H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mabane, William
Stones, James


Drewe, Cedric
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Storey, Samuel


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thompson, Luke


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Merriman. Sir F. Boyd
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Morrison, William Shepherd
Touche. Gordon Cosmo


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Train. John


Fox, Sir Gifford
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon


Fraser, Captain Ian
Munro, Patrick
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.
North, Edward T.
Walls, Sydney Richard


Golf, Sir Park
Nunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Goldie, Noel B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)




Wills, Wilfrid D.
Womersley, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Captain Austin Hudson and Dr.


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wragg, Herbert
Morris-Jones.


Wise, Alfred R.
Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 36, leave out the words, "kind, variety of grade" and insert instead thereof the word"description."—[Major Elliot.]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, to leave out paragraph (a).
I move this Amendment in order to obtain a satisfactory explanation. In this paragraph power was given for a marketing board to delegate its powers to the development board. A marketing board is subject to inquiry and investigation by the Consumers Committee. The development board, having a marketing board's powers delegated to it, may circumvent the Consumers Committee. In the original Bill the words were as follow:
A development board, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the scheme, may be enabled to exercise on behalf of a constituent marketing board any powers.
The words "exercise on behalf of" were amended in Committee. Now the whole powers of a marketing board can be delegated to the development board. It seems to me that the Consumers Committee have little enough power when ultimately they are appointed, and now they can short circuit any inquiry of the Consumers Committee. The development board not only deals with primary products. It has power to deal with secondary products. Therefore all kinds of industrial interests are involved, and it becomes infinitely more necessary that the Consumers Committee shall have an oversight of the development board's activities. I want the hon. Gentleman to provide us with a justification for the change that was made in Committee, and to assure us that, when the Consumers Committee is ultimately appointed, it will have power to inquire into the activities of the development boards just as in the original Bill it had power to inquire into the activities of marketing boards. If he will clear up the point, perhaps we need not press it to a Division.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the hon. Member correct in saying that a marketing
board can delegate its powers to a development board? Was not there an Amendment upstairs which gave the development board power to take over— not that marketing boards should delegate their powers? The right hon. Gentleman said that on Report he would make it clear that the Consumers' Council would have the same power in regard to the development boards as to marketing boards. I shall be very glad if he will make the point clear. Is it a fact that the development board can take over powers and not have them delegated to it?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that there is any difference of view between the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) "to delegate," and those used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), "to take over." Actually the procedure is that the development scheme will include these powers. A development scheme, the House will recall, is put forward by the marketing boards concerned, and, therefore, it becomes immaterial whether you use the word "delegate" or the words "take over." With regard to the question asked by my hon. Friend, I can certainly give him a definite and specific assurance that the development board will be subject to a consumers' committee and an investigation committee in precisely the same way as the marketing board. With regard to the inclusion of this provision, the development board is given these powers because the two marketing boards concerned, in the respects dealt with in the Sub-section, may find it more convenient when the powers are exercised by the superior power, the development board, rather than by the inferior power constituting the marketing board. I think these are the only points which have arisen on the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman direct us to the point, either in the original Act or in this Bill, where the consumers' committee will be permitted? If he cannot tell us at the moment, perhaps he will tell us later.

Mr. SKELTON: I will look it up.

Mr. WILLIAMS: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 32, after the word "any," insert the word "agricultural."—[Major Elliot.]

10.33 p.m.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) No provision of a development shall be deemed to empower the development board or any constituent marketing board to establish any market or slaughterhouse unless that provision in terms confers on the board a specific power to establish markets or slaughter-houses as the case may be.
The Amendment seeks to make the power specific and not by implication. It is a short but very important point. Many local authorities own markets and abattoirs and have established them at great expense from public money and for the public good. I admit under the Bill that the new powers given to the development boards may require the establishment of new markets or abattoirs. If that is the case, I ask that such powers should be given by express provision in the development schemes. It should not be a question of implied powers being given to a development board. If the powers are expressly given, the local authority will know where they are, and have an opportunity of putting their case and stating what they desire to say.
The Amendment that I now move is practically in the same words as the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section (5) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which merely repeats a provision in the principal Act. My object is the same as the reason which led the Government of that day to insert the provision in the principal Act. I may be met with the argument that a development scheme under the Bill will not confer any powers beyond those already conferred by one of the constituent marketing authorities, but it. is one thing to give power to a marketing authority and a different thing to give it to a development authority. These powers can be exercised by development boards even if they are not specially given. In Sub-section 4 (e) there is set forth the provisions which a development scheme may contain. It may provide:
(e) for such matters as are necessary for giving effect to or are incidental to, or consequential on, the provisions of the scheme made in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act.
Since this is a Bill to establish marketing, surely it is clear that the establishment of markets would be a power implied in the provision that I have just read. It may be a power that the Development Board have to have, but it is fairer to the local authority who have done their duty in establishing markets and abbatoirs and spent public money on them, that if competing markets are to be established they should be established under powers specifically given in the development scheme.

10.38 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend while it is true that in Sub-section (4) (e) it is provided that the board shall have power
for such matters as are necessary for giving effect to, or are incidental to, or consequential on, the provisions of the scheme made in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act,
the right hon. Gentleman will see that in paragraph (a) of the same Sub-section the powers there given to the Development Board do not include sales. Therefore, there can be no power to set up a market as consequential on or incidental to provisions which do not include the power of sale. There is no power for a Development Board to establish a market. Secondly, as regards slaughter houses, a Development Board can only establish a slaughter house after deriving the power from a constituent marketing board, and the Marketing Board can only have that power if it is expressly authorised in terms in any scheme. Therefore, as regards markets, the power does not arise at all, and as regards slaughter houses, it would have to be expressly stated in the terms of the scheme.

Major HILLS: Could not a Development Board exercise the powers of a constituent marketing board and form markets as well as slaughter houses?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 9.—(Determination of quantities of products which may be sold.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 13, leave out the words "kind, variety, grade of."—[Major Elliot.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, to leave out the word "either."
This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the following Amendment, to leave out the words "or require the board to prescribe it." The point is this. Clause 9 amends the original Act and permits a marketing board to determine not only the kind, variety and grade, but the quantity. It says:
The principal Act shall have effect as if section five thereof were extended so as to enable any scheme under that Act to provide for the determination from time to time of the quantity of the regulated product or of any kind, variety, grade or description thereof, which may be sold by any registered producer, so, however, that the scheme shall either specify the method of determination.
And then come the offending words:
or require the board to prescribe it.
It may be necessary to determine the quantity which may be sold by any producer, but surely the scheme ought to determine the method of restricting quantities. This House has or should have some little control over accepting or rejecting a scheme, but if the method of restricting and determining quantities is left to the board the last vestige of power of this House has gone. We are proposing these Amendments in order to ensure that the scheme itself shall embody the method by which quantities shall be determined, otherwise we are left with no control. For that reason alone the right hon. Gentleman, being a good Parliamentarian and constitutionalist, at least until he introduced this Bill, will, I hope, accept the Amendment.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can the Minister of Agriculture tell me whether the Clause will enable a board to amend a scheme without going through the procedure required by the principal Act? Are we doing away with a public inquiry, which at present is necessary before any amendment can be made in a scheme?

10.45 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
I can assure him that this is one of those provisions which necessarily follow from the task which we set ourselves, largely at the instigation of hon. Members opposite two years ago, of planning agricultural production. When you are planning control of any crop you are engaged on what is necessarily a difficult task. The amount which a board has to prescribe is related not only to the home demand, but also the nature's bounty. When you are dealing with any vegetable crop you are constantly against the problem of either having a possible shortage or a possible bumper crop. A few months or a. few weeks before the harvest it is very difficult to tell exactly what the crop is going to be, but if we want to relate supply and demand and to avoid the enormous waste of money which is involved in harvesting a crop that is not required for public use, we have to give the board some wide powers to adjust the supply to the demand.
My hon. Friend says that that is quite right, but the methods that the board are to pursue ought to be laid down in the scheme. I suggest that it is not possible to require a board always to lay down exact details of the method which it will have to employ. The principles no doubt must be specified in the scheme, but the exact method which the board is going to employ in every season to-make this adjustment must to a large extent depend on the circumstances of the case. I submit that in these matters we are bound to give to the board a certain amount of latitude. Everything. that the board does is subject to the review of this House. The Minister has to present an annual report on the working of the board to this House. If the board makes any mistake it is certain that hon. Members' constituents will see that the mistake is brought to the notice of the House. In all these matters the board will be acting under a great searchlight of public opinion. We shall probably achieve the best result by giving to the board a certain amount of latitude and trusting to the very ample provisions which exist in the Bill and in the Act of 1931 for seeing that the actions of the board are subject to criticism and review. If the board goes beyond its legitimate authority or makes mistakes, there is every means open to
this House to call upon the Minister to interfere and for the matter to be ventilated.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: As I understand it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, not to call a second Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I wish to refer to a point in the latter part of the Clause. I believe that this latter part was introduced by the Minister himself in Committee, and I want to refer to the passage which says:
the scheme may provide for the quantity aforesaid being determined, in the case of any registered producer, wholly or partly by reference to the quantity of the product or of the kind, variety, grade or description thereof, as the case may be, which was, in some past period, produced on particular land or premises or by particular persons.
It appears to me that, in its present form, this would enable producers to prevent anyone coming in because of the wording of the latter part of the Clause. For instance, the co-operative movement, which is engaged in a number of activities, might refuse to come into another type of production and might be prevented from coming in at all by those words.

10.50 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: In the first place, the general position as to the particular Amendment which has been moved ought to be considered by the House in view of the admittedly novel and. experimental nature of the procedure which we are setting up. There is a danger in attempting to foresee too completely and to lay down in advance too rigidly the steps we shall have to take. No doubt we shall have to review the procedure under this Act in years to come, but the proper time to do that is when we come to it. As the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot {Lord Wolmer) said, if there are mistakes made, the whole position is subject to Parliamentary review. Every producer of any product anywhere in the United Kingdom has his representative here in the House of Commons, and will undoubtedly raise these matters. I think there is less danger of injustice being done by leaving a good deal of latitude at the beginning and correcting things as they come along than by tying the matter
up too closely and then unpicking the knots when we have got the parcel so tightly tied that it is impossible for us to find a knife to cut the string. It may be that, when we are in a hurry to get a particular knot untied, we shall find it requires action by both Lords and Commons to alter it. That is my answer to my hon. Friend.
It is true that, if liberty is given to the board to prescribe the method, then the actual procedure will not come before this House for sanction, though it will come before this House for review. It is true that these powers are novel but with good will we shall do ourselves less harm by allowing for a certain amount of play than by making things too rigid at this stage. I would strongly urge the House not to insist on the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend, and I would ask him, with that explanation that it is an experimental position, to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. The further point of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) touches rather on the later lines of the Clause itself and the power of new entrants coming into this field. Again, I say it is not intended to operate these provisions harshly or aggressively. They will be under the review of boards or committees on which there is a considerable amount of Governmental representation. In any case, the whole matter will be reviewed by the House of Commons canvassing and catechising the action of the servant of the Crown, the Minister of Agriculture, who stands here to answer for his salary, and thus the House has the ultimate right of controlling his actions. I hope the House will see its way, Since it has the power of future catechism and review of my action, to leave liberty to these boards and to rely on its power of reviewing future events.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is that statement a repetition of the previous promise of the Minister?.

Major ELLIOT: My previous promise was more specific that that. My promise then was to bear in mind. My present assurance is that the House will be able to review these matters. I am simply reminding the House that it is not abandoning any of that power. My previous promise was to bear something favour-
ably in mind. In the previous case I was presumably to sit as a judge, in wig and gown as it were; in the present case it is contemplated that I may appear in the future as a penitent in a white sheet carrying a candle. There is a difference between the two positions.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's evident desire to do something—whether right or wrong—we express our appreciation by asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 11, line 21, leave out from the first word "of" to the word "as" in line 22, and insert instead thereof the words "that product or description."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Extension of marketing boards' powers by Order.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 38, leave out the words "kinds, varieties, grades or."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of marketing boards to negotiate with other persons.)

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, at the end to insert the words:
(2) Where no consultation with any person has been undertaken as provided in this Sub-section, it shall be competent for the parties concerned to agree to refer any dispute to arbitration.
This Amendment would follow on Subsection (1) and needs no explanation from me, but we should like to hear what the Minister has to say upon it.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: The words which the hon. Member seeks to insert contain a definite reference to arbitration and are out of place in this context. "Arbitration" in the strict sense is for the purpose of interpreting or coming to a decision in regard to a binding contract, but in this case ex hypothesi there is no binding contract. There are negotiations in progress between two sides and therefore in the strict sense of the word "arbitration" is out of place in this connection. For that reason alone it would be improper to accept the Amendment. With regard to the suggestion that in negotiations, say, between a marketing board and a body of distributors, it is desirable
to have some referee or impartial person to hold the balance equally, we think we have attained that end by the Amendment which has been passed and which provides that marketing boards shall have power in such negotiations to call to their aid impartial people who can be nominated by the Minister and who will act as the impartial element in the negotiations. I think that will have the result desired by the hon. Member but we could not possibly put the word "arbitration" into the Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.59 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out the words "contribute towards" and to insert instead thereof the words "pay the whole or any part of."
This is an important Amendment but I can explain it briefly. It might happen that nobody other than the board was concerned in paying the salaries and expenses of the advisers on whose wisdom the board is allowed by the Clause to draw. In such cases the board would not have the authority to pay the whole of their remuneration and expenses, which it might not be able to contribute towards, although willing to do so, because there was no other party to join in the contribution, but this would enable them to pay, not the contribution, but the sum total of the expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Constitution of marketing boards.)

11.1 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 13, line 29, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
With this Amendment, I propose to deal with the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 31, to leave out from the word "composed," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
of an equal number of representatives of producers of the primary or secondary product concerned and representatives of associations of distributors of those products with an independent chairman.
My desire will be easily recognised if the Clause is read as proposed by my Amendments.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: It is indeed an astonishing proposition that Members of the party opposite, who were responsible, as we most willingly concede, for the first Marketing Act, with its structure of schemes and marketing boards, and with their desire, constantly and sometimes passionately expressed, that British agriculture should be organised, should at this stage propose a composition of marketing boards which would be fatal to their object. I do not think the House, would suppose that any branch of the farming industry, with a long individualist position behind it, would readily put itself under the control of marketing boards with half their members composed of distributors. That proposition seems to me to be so alien to the whole idea of producers organising themselves that I need hardly quote the very strong words used by Dr. Addison when a similar proposal was made in the original Act, to show how impossible the suggestion is. If this proposal were incorporated in the Bill, so as to make marketing boards composed half of distributors, any anxiety as to whether or not the great bulk of farmers would support a marketing scheme would be reduced to an absolute certainty of knowing that they would not, because nobody could advise them to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 13.—(Compensation under marketing schemes.)

11.4 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Clause removes the alleged equitable basis of compensation in the original Act and leaves the question of compensation entirely in the hands of the board. This Bill involves more or less all industrial interests and the users of primary products of agriculture, and we fear that all sorts of difficulties may arise because of the encouragement given to production in certain circumstances and the discouragement of production in other circumstances, and the method of determination of compensation may be so difficult that we doubt the wisdom of the Minister in changing the Section of the original
Act. This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the best arguments were advanced in favour of it. Some of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's friends were very disturbed, and we hope that the Minister has had a further opportunity of examining the question.

11.6 p.m.

Dr. BURG1N: Consultations have taken place as to whether or not Clause 13 is better than the original Section 7, and in three sentences I can tell the House why in the opinion of the Minister in charge of the Bill Clause 13 is a considerable improvement. In Section 7 of the principal Act every scheme had to provide that compensation should be payable. What is wanted is not that compensation should be compulsory even though equitable, but that the board should have power to pay it in proper cases. Clause 13 so provides and is therefore an obvious improvement.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there will be no inequity and no disturbance among his farmer friends I do not object and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions as to Orders.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 10, leave out from the word "under" to the word "shall," in line 12, and insert instead thereof the words "section ten of this Act."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions as to Northern Ireland.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 28, leave out the words "kind, variety, or grade," and insert instead thereof the word "description."

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 22, line 1, after the word "regulations," t0o insert (a)"
This and the two following Amendments go together and are really drafting Amendments. They are necessary in order to enable Northern Ireland to take part in the United Kingdom scheme for supply and regulation notwithstanding any limitation imposed by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. These Amendments bring this Clause into line with the rest of the Bill particularly Clauses 1 and 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 2, leave out the words "kind, variety, grade or."

In line 3, at the end, insert the words: "or
(b) the descriptions of the product which may be so moved."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 23, line 20, after the word "required," insert the words "or authorised."—[Major Elliot.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Procedure in connection with Submission and Approval of Development Schemes. Part II: Amendment and Revocation of Development Schemes..)

11.9 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 25, line 32, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 33, and to insert instead thereof the words:
and shall so revoke a development scheme not later than the end of the period of six weeks from the date on which he is requested in writing by the Development Board so to do, unless the board have previously notified him that they desire to withdraw the request.
Under the principal Act producers have the power to require the Minister to revoke a scheme, and it is felt that a similar right should be given to the Marketing Boards constituting a Development Board, but as there will be no preliminary poll as in the case of the principal Act, it was thought best to allow the Minister to postpone action for a short period in case the request for revocation, was made in the heat of the moment before wiser counsels prevailed. We know the proverb about the wrath of lovers leading to the making-up again of love."Ira amantium redintegratio amoris." In some cases the wrath of the board might lead to an improved state of affairs later.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, incidental functions and winding-up of Development Boards.)

11.10 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 27, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
(f) for the furnishing by the Development Board to any person requiring them,
on payment of such fee as may be prescribed in the scheme, of an annual balance sheet and either an annual income and expenditure account or, if the Development Board trades for profit, an annual profit-and-loss account.
This is a simple Amendment. The original Act provides for the furnishing by the marketing board of a copy of the balance sheets of the board to any person requiring them, and all we say in the Amendment is that the balance sheet and the accounts of the development board shall be made available in the same way. In fact, we think it is even more essential that the balance sheet of the development board shall be available, and we invite the right hon. Gentleman to make provision for that purpose.

Major ELLIOT: I can offer my hon. Friend the same concession that King Solomon offered to the mother on a famous occasion. I will give him half the baby, if he likes to split his Amendment in two. I think it is right that the board should be prepared to furnish its balance sheet on payment to anybody who wishes it, but it is a little harsh that it should be required to furnish other accounts. But, as I say, I am a very fair-minded man and, if my hon. Friend likes, I will cut the baby in two and he can have the head half now and I will keep the tail half.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I willingly accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's offer. It is almost the first substantial offer I have had made to me to-night.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 27, line 12, at the end, insert the words:
(f) for the furnishing by the Development Board to any person requiring it, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed in the scheme, of an annual balance-sheet."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of Principal Act.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 14, leave out the words "there shall be substituted for paragraph (e)," and insert instead thereof the words:
in paragraph (b) for the words 'kind, variety, or grade,' in each place where those words occur there shall be substituted the word 'description,' for paragraph (e) there shall be substituted.
In line 17, leave out the words "kinds, varieties, grades, or.

In line 22, leave out the words "kind, variety, grade."

In line 25, at the begininng, insert the words:
in paragraph (f), for the words 'kind, variety, and for the words' kind, variety, grade,' there shall be substituted the word 'description.'

In line 37, after the word "circumstances," insert the words "and in respect of such matters."—[Major Elliot.]

11.15 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 29, line 1, to leave out from the word "producers" to the end of the paragraph.
The original Act provided that funds should be established out of which adequate compensation might be made to producers, in proportion to the respective contribution of the producers, but the Minister now proposes to do away with that form of distribution and to insert the words:
in such manner as may be provided by the scheme.
The effect of my Amendment would be to leave the Act as origiNaily passed in 1931. I call the attention of the House to the fact that, if the matter is left as desired by the Minister, there would be no right to compensation to producers under that Clause. That is a very serious matter to introduce into a Schedule at the tail end of a Bill, and I hope that the Minister, who has shown signs of relenting a good deal, may relent sufficiently to accept the Amendment.

11.16 p.m.

Dr. BURG1N: We all desire that any fund which has been assembled in this way should be distributed properly, and the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment wants some assurance that it will go to producers. The method of distribution may be controlled by producers, the Minister and by Parliament. The point is quite simple. Under the old Act a fund which was accumulated was to be distributed in proportion to all contributions over a great many years. That might produce a most inequitable result, and in order to simplify the old Act, words are introduced into this Schedule which enable a scheme to pro-
vide a method of distribution applicable to the right people who contribute to the fund for the right period of time.

Major MILNER: Not necessarily to producers?

Dr. BURGIN: You are to distribute the fund among the right people in the right-manner, that can be controlled by producers, Minister and Parliament. That is definitely simpler and better.

Major MILNER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

Ordered,
That so much of the lords Message [25th May] as relates to the Local Government Bill [Lords] be now considered."— [Sir F. Thomson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Local Government Bill [Lords]" —[Sir F. Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Mr. Haydn Jones, Lieut. -Colonel Heneage, Major Hills, Major Milner, Mr. Petherick, and Mr. Shakespeare, nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three he the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.